I Catch WorldNetDaily Scrubbing Information that Directly Contradicts One of Dr. Jerome Corsi’s Most Important Fraud Theories!

Well, this has been interesting! Very interesting indeed.

Two days ago, WorldNetDaily published an article intended to further bolster Paul Irey’s claim that differences in the fonts prove the Obama birth certificate is a forgery.

The major new information that they brought forth consisted of images of a “new” Hawaii long-form birth certificate, not previously shown in public, from a female child born at Kapiolani Hospital on August 23, 1961 at 12:37 a.m.

A reader who posts under the pseudonym of “Woofer” alerted me this morning (in the comments to “Answering Citizen Wells”) that WorldNetDaily had changed the images of the birth certificate that were there yesterday, and substituted new ones.

In fairness to WorldNetDaily, there’s nothing wrong with editing and improving an already-published article — I just made a few editorial changes to improve the wording of a previous post myself — but this image-swapping seemed a bit odd, since the new image removes almost all of the few typewritten characters that showed on the original one, leaving only — on the entire certificate — the date and a single instance of the words “Honolulu” and “Oahu.”

This seemed odd, because they have now blocked viewers from more original access to more than 110 characters on the birth certificate that were previously shown. The whole point of the article was the typewritten characters of the certificate. And none of these characters, except for possibly the time of birth (12:37 am) have any information that is in any way personally identifying.

They even blocked out the name of the hospital — after telling us in the article that it’s Kapiolani!

The obvious theory as to why, advanced by Woofer, was that they perhaps did not want people to be able to really test Irey’s theory for themselves.

And that may well be. Or it could be simply an overzealous editor. In any event, it seems very strange.

What caught my attention, however, when I fished the original image out of google’s cache (interestingly, I probably would never have done this if they hadn’t swapped the images) was not what was on the front, but what was on… the back.

By the way, at the time of this article the original image is still currently available in google’s cache — if you hurry.

But before I show you what I found on the back of the certificate, let me note that WND also deleted another bit of information from the front images — one that again is in no way personally identifying, unless you have access to the original files of the Hawaii Department of Health, which of course nobody in the public does. And they deleted this bit of information in both cases — original and revised images.

The birth certificate number.

Now why did they delete the birth certificate number from both the original and new images, when it contains no personally identifying information?

Now it turns out that information on the front of a document sometimes bleeds through to the back. If you mirror-image the back of a document and enhance it, you can sometimes read what’s on the front, even if (as in this case) you don’t have the direct front image.

So here’s a mirror-image of the certificate number area, from the original back image of their new birth certificate. It has been enlarged — being very careful to do a straight “pixel resize” so as not to distort any of the information:

Can you read the certificate number? Let’s try enhancing it:

And again, using slightly different parameters:

Busted!! I read 61 09945. Isn’t that what you see? If it isn’t, it’s got to be close.

Now it’s possible to argue about the two 9’s — the first one in particular might be an 8, though I don’t think it is — but the rest of the digits, to me, come through pretty clearly. I don’t think there’s any dispute that the first digit after the 61 is a 0. Do you?

Well.. if you have any doubt about that, the only other digit it could possibly be is a 1. And we have an example of what that looks like in the 61.

No, it’s pretty clear. Compare it for yourself. There’s no doubt. That’s not a 1. It’s a 0.

And yet the birth date of this child is August 23, 1961.

Now we see that whether WorldNetDaily deliberately hid this information or not, there was certainly very, very good reason for them to — as it directly contradicts one of their most important forgery theories.

Dr. Jerome Corsi has widely and adamantly claimed that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate number absolutely proves the birth certificate is a fraud. In my book, I documented this quote by Corsi:

“10641 is impossible to be Barack Obama’s birth certificate number… When he was registered on August 8th, the number was stamped with an old one of the increment-by-number counters, ‘10641.’ The Nordyke twins were born a day later in the hospital, August 5th. They were registered 3 days later, August 11th.

And they were given numbers 10637 and 10638. It’s impossible, because that counter does not reverse. And 3-days-earlier registered Obama would’ve had to have a lower number, maybe by 20, from the Nordyke twins.”

In the same chapter of my book, I also documented how Dr. Corsi made a demonstrably false claim in the WorldNetDaily article here (which maintained that the Obama certificate was a fraud for the same reason).

Specifically, Corsi claimed, at least twice, that a linked 1955 article on the birth certificate registration system excluded any possibility of birth certificates being stamped “out of order” — when the article, supplied by Corsi and WorldNetDaily themselves, gave no such information at all.

I also documented in the book how Stig Waidelich’s birth certificate number, shown on CNN, flatly contradicted the fraud-by-number-sequence theory.

But it was still possible to theorize that some kind of fraud on the part of CNN and/ or the Hawaii Department of Health in regard to Stig Waidelich’s number might have been used to cover up an Obama forgery.

That possibility, however small, has now been eliminated for us by none other than WorldNetDaily themselves. The new birth certificate image that they posted on Monday — which they themselves told us was genuine — shows a birth certificate accepted by the Registrar on August 24, 1961, for a child born on August 23, with a birth certificate number of 61 0xx45 (and most likely 61 09945).

This is a birth certificate much lower than Obama’s, the Nordykes, and Stig Waidelich’s — and yet it was filed nearly two weeks after the last of these.

No doubt WorldNetDaily never intended to provide us with this hard evidence that their “impossible” proof of forgery regarding the certificate numbers is absolute and total nonsense.

But they did.

This entry was posted in New Information. Bookmark the permalink.

175 Responses to I Catch WorldNetDaily Scrubbing Information that Directly Contradicts One of Dr. Jerome Corsi’s Most Important Fraud Theories!

  1. Mary Adams says:


    Your investigative skills are far beyond Irey’s, Daniels, Corsis’, Sankey’s and all the rest combined!

    Thanks for a new bit of debunking info.

  2. Marge says:

    Good catch, Mr. Woodman. Isn’t it interesting that Mr. Irey and Dr. Corsi ignore the information which refutes so many of the birther claims. I’m sure that I can’t count all of them but here are a few more. 1) The input in the data fields is centered 2) The name of the registrar is the same (Verna K. L. Lee) 3. Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital.

  3. Slartibartfast says:

    Mr. Woodman,

    Thank you for another piece of evidence regarding the credibility (or lack thereof) of Dr. Corsi and World Net Daily. I think that you will find that all of the birthers are going to start calling you an obot – and you know what? They’re right. Because obots are not, as some birthers think, paid agents of George Soros or fanatic, unquestioning supporters of President Obama or agents of the Illuminati trying to bring about the new world order. Instead they are members of the reality-based community who have chosen to look at any aspect of the eligibility question. The entire birther movement is completely and totally devoid of merit as anyone who looks at any aspect of it objectively quickly realizes. The birthers misinterpret this unity amongst their opponents as a sign of organization and collusion and believe that in order to be “objective” one must buy in to their false equivalences (as can be seen in many of the birther comments here). Sorry, but, like it or not, you’re an obot now – I’m sure your Soros check is in the mail… 😉

    • John Woodman says:

      I’ll take all of what you said as a compliment. 🙂 Nonetheless, I am not, do not, and can not support Mr. Obama. And I take support of Obama to be inherent in the term “Obot.”

      I will, however, concede to being an Rbot, or a Tbot — someone committed to Reality and Truth, as I understand those two things.

      Nonetheless, as someone noted the other day, sometimes the divide isn’t between right and left — it’s between those who want to work with what’s real, and those who want to embrace unreality as if it were reality.

      As far as being called an “Obot,” that’s already happened, along with a number of other choice terms. My other new post today is on that very topic. 🙂

      • Slartibartfast says:

        I was just pointing out that the term “obot” doesn’t really refer to a person supporting President Obama, but rather their awareness that birther arguments are completely without merit.

        • John Woodman says:

          Well, and in a practical sense, I think you’ve definitely got a point there — as I’ve run into a lot of folks for whom I “am” an “Obot.” So yes, I can relate to what you’re saying. 🙂

  4. John says:

    Nice try Paul but no cigar. You can clearly see a 1 in front of the 0 and after the 61. The certificate number is really 61 109945 not 61 09945. This would be more consistent since this birth was on August 23, 1961 which is 2 weeks after Obama’s birth. You can definitely see a 1 in the WND image in front of the 0. The enhancement butchers the 1 but you can still see a piece of it. Keep up your hard work serving the obots.

    • Arthur B. says:

      Sorry, John, what are you saying would be more consistent — assuming that a sixth digit was required in the second part of the number because there had been about ten thousand births in 2 weeks?

      • Arthur B. says:

        LOL — my mistake — it’s more like a HUNDRED thousand!

        • John Woodman says:

          Right! There would’ve had to be about 99,000 babies born in Hawaii in two weeks.

          Quite a feat, since (as I recall) there were on average around 17,000 babies born per year in Hawaii circa 1961, or about 325 a week or 650 per two weeks.

          Talk about your baby boom! 😉

    • Hawaiiborn says:

      “The certificate number is really 61 109945 not 61 09945. ”

      then it doesn’t make sense since there is only about a recorded 300 births in Honolulu in the month of august of 1961 ( based on the release birth index)

      61 109945 is one EXTRA NUMBER more than Obama’s, the Nordyke Twins.

      61 10,641 — Obama
      61 10,637 — Nordyke Twin #1
      61 10,638 — Nordyke Twin #2
      61 109,945 <—- 1 EXTRA NUMBER!!!!

      There is no "1" in front of the "0" and that is a DEFINITE 5 at the end.

      Are you saying that there were 99,300+ babies were born between August 4 and August 23 in Honolulu HI in 1961?

      You do know that the population of Honolulu in 1961 was less than a 100,000 (as of 2009 the population of Honolulu was 379,000)

    • John Woodman says:

      Hi John, and thanks for weighing in. My name’s actually John as well. Paul’s the man whose theory WND was promoting. 🙂

      And yes, there’s a tiny bit of a smudge before the zero. I already considered carefully whether there could possibly be another digit there. But there isn’t. There really can’t be.

      The pattern for birth certificate numbers at the Hawaii Department of Health in the summer of 1961 goes like this: 61 (the year) followed by five digits. We have:

      61 10641 – registered August 08, 1961 – Barack Obama (see web page header!)
      61 10637 – registered August 11, 1961 – Susan Nordyke
      61 10638 – registered August 11, 1961 – Gretchen Nordyke
      61 10920 – registered August 08, 1961 – Stig Waidelich
      and now:
      61 09945 – registered August 23, 1961 – WND’s female child

      Now it’s true that the image of Stig Waidelich’s (new-format short form) certificate in my book adds a zero before those 5 digits. But that’s simply because the short form certificates are compiled from a computer database — so the image for Stig in my book is not a photographic image of his original long form certificate. Like all of the other long-form examples we have, that will undoubtedly have only 5 digits after the 61.

      And even if it had another digit, it would have to be a zero.

      So… the analysis stands. I’d say WND has driven the final nail into the coffin of their own major forgery theory — one in which Jerome Corsi claimed it was “impossible” for the evidence to show anything but a fraud.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Mr. Woodman,

        I think John’s comment proves my point – you can’t be unbiased to the birthers unless you agree with them. I particularly like the ill-fitting epicycle that John tried using to cover the fact that he equates “true” with “anti-Obama” in his mind…

        p.s. I think your blog would be easier to read if you got rid of the nesting replies and just had the comments in the order they were made. Also, it would be nice if there was a checkbox to subscribe to a post via email like some blogs have. Just my $0.02…

        • John Woodman says:

          I’d be very interested in other folks’ input as to whether the nested replies are better, or comments in order made.

          Is it the amount of indent that bothers you (that could be reduced), or the fact that you have to kind of go back and hunt?

          I’ll try and see about adding the other feature, but can’t do it right now. There are a lot of things going on. If I should forget, please remind me! 😉

          • Slartibartfast says:

            It’s the hunting, not the indenting – the extended “recent comments” block is a big improvement, but (my opinion) if you want people to follow and participate in conversations, then you should make it as easy for them to do so as possible (and I believe both of my suggestions would help with that).

            I completely understand about being busy – like you wouldn’t believe! 😉

          • ◄Dave► says:

            I prefer the nesting. Else, one just has to go back and search for the comment being replied to. The latest comment widget will take one directly to all new comments, and newcommers can read old commentary much more easily with the nesting.

  5. ◄Dave► says:

    Now, this is bloody fascinating. Great find! It sure makes the case for LIFO batch processing doesn’t it? Still, I would caution against accepting the label ‘Obot.’ 😉 ◄Dave►

    • John Woodman says:

      Lol. Oh, I definitely don’t accept the label. I’d be kidding myself, though, if I didn’t accept facts that there are people who are going to try and paste it on me. 😉

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Actually, I think that the Nordyke twins, President Obama, and Stig W. were all in a single batch that was alphabetized by last name. This would have Obama shortly after the Nordykes with a longer gap before Stig W’s BC. Which is exactly what we see…

      And birthers are going to call Mr. Woodman an obot whether he accepts the label or not – that’s what they call everyone who tells them that their arguments are devoid of merit, why should he be any different? If the birthers admit that a rational person acting in good faith can come to the conclusion that their arguments are faulty, then all of the hateful things they’ve said about the legitimate president paint them in a very bad light.

      • HistorianDude says:

        The rough alphabetizing would make sense if for no other reason than creating an index of births. As a family historian I am often required to review birth registers compiled before computerization, and most such registers have an alphabetized index to permit searching for documents when birth dates are unknown. After all… the registration number and its sequence is actually useless for such a search.

        Also, since the documents were demonstrably numbered by batch, keeping them in rough alphabetical order during the time between their creation and their numbering would also make them easier to search if access was necessary during the interim.

  6. John says:

    Ok John…I am afraid I must agree that number you cite is correct. Yes, this would seem to contradict Corsi’s theory. However, Corsi has offered just one possible theory about the out of sequence certificate number. The Daily Pen offers another theory about the out of sequence certificate number that suggests that Obama was NOT BORN but examined by a Kapoloni Hospital Doctor. Here is the link: http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/04/out-of-order-obamas-non-sequential.html
    It is very complicated to understand.

    • Arthur B. says:

      I’m still not following.

      The five birth certificates, listed in numerical order, line up as follows:

      61 09945 – registered August 23, 1961 – WND’s female child
      61 10637 – registered August 11, 1961 – Susan Nordyke
      61 10638 – registered August 11, 1961 – Gretchen Nordyke
      61 10641 – registered August 08, 1961 – Barack Obama
      61 10920 – registered August 08, 1961 – Stig Waidelich

      In what sense is Obama to be singled out as having the “out of sequence certificate number”?

      • John Woodman says:

        Datewise, compared to the Nordyke twins.

        The claim that birth certificates were numbered in date order, and that it was impossible for them to be numbered otherwise, was advanced by Corsi as iron-clad proof that Obama’s birth certificate was a fraud. In Corsi’s words, it was “impossible” for it to have happened naturally.

        That was before we had even Stig Waidelich’s number, which shows otherwise. Some people have said, well, Stig’s short form was fraudulently numbered by the Hawaii Department of Health. The theory seems unlikely, yet, it was made.

        But now we have, in addition to Waidelich’s number, a genuine, photographic, long form certificate, which was produced in 1995 and which WorldNetDaily assures us is perfectly genuine, which also demonstrates the failure of the claim.

        • Arthur B. says:

          Well, yes, that’s my point. Now that we see how the five line up, it makes no sense to continue to seek an explanation for Obama’s “out of sequence certificate number,” which seemed to me to be implicit in (the other) John’s response. Looking at the five, there is nothing in their order that would lead one to distinguish Obama’s situation from the others.

          • John Woodman says:

            If we were to go by Dave’s LIFO theory (Last In, First Out) the order seems to fit fairly well, except that the same-day gap between Stig and Obama of 279 is pretty big.

    • John Woodman says:

      Yes, John. I’ve read their theory before, and actually started to comment on it a little while ago, but didn’t bring it up simply because it IS so complicated!

      Anyway, the basic idea from them is that birth certificate number was based more on LOCATION and NOT directly based on time of birth.

      As far as I can see, the new information actually kills their theory as well, because it’s undisputed that the Nordkye twins were born at Kapiolani, and so was the female child in the new birth certificate presented on Monday by WND. So we have Nordykes born on the 5th, new girl born at the exact same hospital on the 23rd, and yet new girl’s birth certificate number is nearly 700 lower than the Nordykes. So it’s not just location.

      • Mary Adams says:

        Mr. Woodman, I think your theory that a months worth were alphabetized and then stamped makes the most sense.

        Make the same adjustments you did to the number to the last name. It looks like AHARA or something beginning with an “A”.

        • John Woodman says:


          First, to give credit where credit is due: Kevin Davidson (Dr. Conspiracy) was, as far as I know, the first to come up with that theory. I examined the theory earlier, and it seemed to fit the data available at the time.

          So far, I haven’t tried to really reexamine it in the light of the new certificate number. I will say this, though: I think you’re the second to comment that the last name might begin with an “A.” I also felt, looking at the faint, blurry image that we have, that it very well could be an “A.” I’m not sure of that, but it certainly looked very possible and maybe even likely when I examined it.

          Perhaps we should ask Paul Irey and/ or WorldNetDaily to confirm just the first two letters of the last name.

    • Slartibartfast says:


      Have you ever heard of Ockham’s razor? The fact that the theory you link to is very complicated is good evidence that it is most likely flawed. In any case, there is no theory by which President Obama was born outside of Hawai’i which does not involve accusing someone of a crime with absolutely no credible evidence. Which is a manifestly unAmerican thing to do in my opinion. Should you have to prove your innocence if I accused you of a crime with no evidence? Or should your innocence be assumed until you were proven guilty? President Obama has gone far above and beyond what any of his predecessors have done to prove their eligibility – it’s hard not to notice that the black guy is the only one being asked for his papers even after he has gone to extraordinary lengths to show them. Why is that?

      Just admit that President Obama is eligible for his office and is the legitimate POTUS. You don’t have to like him or vote for him – just admit that he is your president too (just like President Bush was my president although I never voted for him and I believe he brought great shame on our nation). All you’ve got to lose is your confirmation bias…

    • Mary Adams says:

      If Obama was not born at Kapiolani, the hospital would not be filling out the BC and it would not list the hospital as place of birth, but the address where he was born. A doctor examining a newborn born elsewhere would not be signing the BC either.

  7. gorefan says:

    Between new girl and Stig there are almost 1000 numbers The monthly average is about 1400. Could it be that numbers were assigned monthly?

  8. charo says:

    Mr. Woodman,

    Many of your commenters here are regulars at Obama Conspiracy Theories. Although they are rallying around you here, even including you as one of their beloved “Obots,” the “Obots” have called Tea Party members racists, idiots, every either outright or implied insult imaginable. I don’t have a list of who said what but there was certainly never any defense of the Tea Party movement by any of the above people. Any time the Tea Party insults commenced, it was a free for all. You prove their broad brush attacks completely wrong.

    Thank you.

    • Hawaiiborn says:

      speaking of broad brush attacks.. nice that you demonstrate what you are trying to admonish.

    • Slartibartfast says:


      When I agree with what someone has said or written, that doesn’t imply my agreement with every position they hold. Also, I wouldn’t characterize the obot’s here as “rallying around” Mr. Woodson – remember that we were already aware that all of the birther claims were without merit – including those that he addressed. He did a very professional job of addressing them in a rigorous way, but it’s not like any of us didn’t know that the “expert” claims of forgery were all bogus already – not because of any bias, but because we had already examined their merits and found them lacking. So please try not to make it sound like Mr. Woodson has produced the obot equivalent of the smoking gun or the OMG moment that the birthers have been convinced is going to happen any day now…

    • the “Obots” have called Tea Party members racists, idiots, every either outright or implied insult imaginable.

      If the hood fits…

  9. The Magic M says:

    Just checked it out myself in Photoshop, it’s definitely “61 09945”. Can’t make out the name properly, and the backside scan is not large enough to contain the parents’ races.

    Let’s see again:

    61 09945 – registered August 23, 1961 – WND’s female child
    61 10637 – registered August 11, 1961 – Susan Nordyke
    61 10638 – registered August 11, 1961 – Gretchen Nordyke
    61 10641 – registered August 08, 1961 – Barack Obama
    61 10920 – registered August 08, 1961 – Stig Waidelich

    This puts the 10640 mark on the N-to-O border.
    Stig is likely on the V-to-W border.
    This means about 280 numbers between “O” and “W”, or 35 numbers per letter.
    With about 700 numbers between the anonymous child and the “O” letter, that would mean about 20 letters before that, so it would have to be one at the very beginning of the alphabet. (One could do a more precise calculation by assessing the average number of names for each letter, the distribution is far from even, of course.)

    It would also mean about 1200, maybe 1300 numbers allotted for the entire alphabet. This would also match with an early letter in August receiving a number close to 10000 as there would’ve been about 9000-10000 numbers for the previous 7 months, especially if you count unused numbers necessarily generated.

    So it makes sense to assume numbering was done in blocks by month.

    • Woofer says:

      I have looked at the names and although it is a real guess both the child’s and the father’s surnames appear to begin with an “A”. It is a guess only. The other weird thing is that the child seems to have three middle names! I can make out the mother’s first and middle names but I will not publish them for it serves no purpose.

      I suppose the moral of the story is if you want your birth certificate data to remain confidential don’t trust it to an amateur like Mr. Irey.

      • This would be consistent with my theory that Obama’s certificate was part of a batch of three weeks worth of certificates, alphabetized and then numbered.

        Thanks Woofer for your observations and to John for publishing this fine article.

      • gorefan says:

        It should be fairly easy to determine the last name, if someone had access to the 1961 newspaper announcements from the 27th or 28th. There is enough other information that can be seen that would help pin it down.

      • Hawaiiborn says:

        “The other weird thing is that the child seems to have three middle names! ”

        Not odd at all for those who were born in Hawaii, or have Hawaiian ancestry. My good friend in elementary school had a 47 letter middle name, and that was one of the 4 middle names she had. Her entire name was over 100 letters long (including her 13 letter last name)

        filling out forms in school was a nightmare for her.

        • Hawaiiborn says:

          Judging by the “length” of the block out on the mother’s name and the “race” box, it seems that we have another Hawaiian / Other Race , so that could explain the long name that seems to be for the child.

          If you wanted to get your child into Kam School, your parents would have needed to declare the race of Hawaiian somewhere, and the COLB would be the perfect place to do so.

      • Mary Adams says:

        Ah, Woofer, you beat me to it, but I concur. Last name begins with an “A” and there are 3 middle names.

        • nbc says:

          That may explain the low number. If as Dr Conspiracy has explained, these documents are collected in batches and then ordered and numbered, we have a reasonable explanation and need not resort to further conspiracies.

  10. Pingback: E-Verify 'flags' Obama's Social Security Number - Page 5 - Political Forum

  11. Pingback: WND Birth Certificate Forgery « Butterdezillion's Blog

  12. It needs to be said says:

    wpotus covered this in a lengthy post.

    the numbers can be out of order when *bold* the child is not born in the hospital. born elsewhere and brought in to the hospital for exam *bold*

    check out that post

    privacy, when it’s already SUPPOSEDLY been revealed to public?

    tim adams?
    jack cashill showed the birth time line info given by obama is a fraud
    went by a different name until college, after having been in indonesia? and doh’s generally seal that kind of thing, adoptions, right?

    there are so many things that cry out investigate! that it’s not even funny.

    and we haven’t even gotten into the ssn yet, which is even more evident of shenanigans.

    • John Woodman says:

      As I said in the book, all that a large number of allegations, in itself, really shows is that we have a large number of allegations.

      A lot of what you just mentioned was investigated and covered in the book.

  13. It needs to be said says:

    butterdezillion also took apart this so called new bc, which has been scrubbed by wnd

    all kinds of problems with it
    no seal, just for starters, there’s more

    i would have to agree with butter that this new bc that has been scrubbed looks like a forgery which was made for the specific purpose of showing how bc’s “can be out of order”

    check out her post
    you said you wanted the truth

    • John Woodman says:

      I’ve read her post already.

      butterdezillion is so deeply committed to the proposition that the birth certificate is a fraud that it has driven her to start proclaiming even a known genuine birth certificate — which even WND assures us is perfectly legitimate — a forgery.

      I have always maintained that “birthers” were reasonable in their questioning. But at a point like that, you have to ask yourself why she is so stuck on her thesis that she can’t accept even a known genuine other birth certificate as genuine. That’s pretty much the definition of having lost any shred of objectivity. And the sad thing is, I’m sure she’s really convinced herself that this new birth certificate is a forgery, too.

      I personally think Nellie has way, way too much invested emotionally and probably needs to just stop and take a complete and total break from the entire issue for at least a month.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        That’s wonderful advice that I highly doubt she would take – and sadly there are many more like her…

        • John Woodman says:

          Oh, I’m sure she would might well respond that I’m trying to sabotage her research by pulling her away from it. But she’s been at this, how long? Her blog goes back for around 21 months. Often when you take a break, it enables you to think about things, and come back later with fresh perspective.

  14. gorefan says:

    “i would have to agree with butter that this new bc that has been scrubbed looks like a forgery which was made for the specific purpose of showing how bc’s “can be out of order””

    So why was it sent to Paul Irey? His analysis has nothing to do with cert #s . Why wouldn’t they have type face that matched the President’s LFBC and debunk Irey’s work?

    • nbc says:

      Good point. When applying logic and reason, many of these questions could be so easily addressed. That BZ has to accuse WND of having released a fraudulent document (inadvertently or not) shows how a bias may affect one’s ability to follow Occham’s razor. BZ is convinced that the documents President Obama released must be fraudulent and thus she has no choice but to interpret anything in that light. Explaining conspiracy with more conspiracy is one of the clearest evidences that the conspiracy has no foundation. It’s like explaining the earth being carried by giant elephants standing on turtles… When asked what the turtles stand on, the response was: clever man, but it’s turtles all the way down.
      Same here….

      • gorefan says:

        I asked BZ that question at her site. She produced a long answer that I only skimmed through, but essentially was something like, they were willing to give up the typeface argument in order to discredit the cert # argument. Which is the really big deal argument.

        Then she went on about date filed versus date accepted. So I left her a question about Danae’s short form and Alan Booth’s short form that both say date filed. We’ll see.

        • John Woodman says:

          That doesn’t even make any sense to me. The new birth certificate they presented was brought forth in an attempt to bolster Irey’s typeface argument.

        • John Woodman says:

          Oh, okay, I get it. The claim is that someone (some Obot forgers) produced a forged document that they then foisted onto WND, knowing that it would bolster Paul Irey’s typeface argument (that was the “bait”), but that it would kill the certificate number argument, which is the one they were really “threatened” by.

          But the whole claim still makes no sense, because (first) any such forgers could not have known the certificate number would be revealed — and in fact, it very nearly wasn’t.

          And secondly, the certificate number argument was pretty much dead already due to Stig Waidelich’s certificate. WND’s new certificate only just drove the final nail in the coffin.

          • nbc says:

            Exactly, the type face argument was laid to rest by you John and the document number by Stig’s number.

            I find it hard to follow some of the ‘logic’ and ‘reasoning’ sometimes…

          • gorefan says:

            Yes, but you are forgettng that Stig’s certificate number was created for the specific purpose of discrediting the cert # argument. In fact, at one point BZ actually thought that the DOH created the cert # on the fly when CNN showed up at the window. But now I think she has settled into the CNN was in on it aong with the DOH theory.

            She also has an interesting theory on the Congressman Giffords shooting, but that’s for another time.

  15. nbc says:


    Yes, race is filled out by the parents and coded to one of 10 categories when entered. It should not come as a surprise that a Kenya census document from around 1960 used the race ‘african’. Negro is a US term, President Obama’s father was not from the US but from Kenya.

    privacy, when it’s already SUPPOSEDLY been revealed to public?

    You miss the point. Hawaiian law PROHIBITS the release of the document unless one belongs to certain categories. Privacy is not the issue here. The fact that President Obama released his COLB and long form has no relevance to the laws of Hawaii.

    Once in proper perspective there remain no real issues with the birth certificate. As to the SSN, again there are none.

    1. Connecticut SSN: As the SSA explains, no significance should be given to this.
    2. As a possible explanation as to how President Obama got a SSN which had been handled by the SSA in CT, the answer appears straightforward: Young Obama sent his application to Baltimore, where the applications are redistributed according to the zip code of the return address. A slight clerical error confused the zip for his address 96814 with one in Connecticut 06814.
    3. All entries for the SSN point to President Obama, even the one with the 1890 DOB. And why do we never hear about the 1990 DOB one or the one where the month and day are reversed?

    There is no evidence of any fraud… Simple.

    • Mary Adams says:

      What there is evidence of is that President Obama has never done anything bad (other than a little admitted drug use) that anyone has been able to find, so they have to make up crazy stuff to try to discredit him.

  16. nbc says:

    Excellent work John. Fascinating how we now have a document from the same time period which lays to rest so many of the myths around President Obama’s BC. The name Kapiolani, the signature Ukelele, the Number. We even see the pencil marks that raised ‘suspicion’ amongst doubter.

    The WND has done a lot to lay to rest these concerns. No wonder they appear to be less than happy about this.

    I appreciate your diligence and ability to do research and analysis in thorough manner.

  17. gorefan says:

    I know you’ve been asked to review Dr. Polland’s analysis of the COLB.

    Here is an example of his work

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Like Orly, “Polarik” is completely deluded as to the overwhelming importance of himself and his cause and it blinds both of them to the utter ridiculousness of their theories.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Yeah, I gotta admit that one gave me cognitive dissonance last night. I had thought better of him. 🙁

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Why? Polarik has been spewing bogus analysis literally from day one. (by the way – Polarik and Taitz are the ones with cognitive dissonance, your comment shows that you aren’t experiencing it… 😉 )

  18. PatinGA says:

    Mr. Woodman,
    If you were looking at numbers that had “bled” through to the back of a page, wouldn’t those numbers be reversed?
    Also, how do you explain that Obama’s father’s race was listed as African, when in 1961, the black race was called Negro.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Bleed through wouldn’t be reversed unless the image bleeding trough was reversed.

      The race field was self-reported. Barack Obama senior described himself as “African” – which unlike “negro” (an American word he may never had heard until he came to the US), was how Africans might reasonably be expected to describe their race…

  19. PatinGA says:

    Sorry, you answered the African question already.

    Did you know the SS # did not pass E-verify? There were problems that have not been explained. Looks like they can’t associate Obama’s name with the number.

    • John Woodman says:


      As far as the reversal goes, yes. I “flipped” the image to reveal a more front-like view.

      I haven’t addressed the social security number controversy for a couple of reasons.

      1) the forgery issues were right up my alley, and they’re enough for me.

      WND claims they have 20 different experts all of whom agree that the long-form birth certificate is a no-brainer forgery. In the book, I addressed at least 30 different claims and/or issues regarding the long-form birth certificate. And after a careful investigation that took 3-months, basically as a second full-time job, of my life, I concluded that all the claims notwithstanding, I really couldn’t find any good evidence that the long-form birth certificate was a forgery.

      So I’ve basically stood up and said, “Excuse me, sir. But all of the experts are basically wrong, and here’s why.”

      I really don’t know anything about the social security number, and I don’t currently have any plans to try and become an expert in that area. To do an investigation like I’ve done is an enormous investment. If Obama has genuinely committed fraud there, then I’m quite happy for someone to produce the hard evidence, impeach him, and throw him in jail. But I don’t have the time or the interest myself to really look into it. A man’s gotta know his limitations.

      2) Even if I did want to take that on, I don’t think I could get access to all the information I would need in order to do a good job. You can only do something with evidence that you can get to, and I don’t think the evidence there is accessible enough that I could do anything with it.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      President Obama’s Social Security number has almost certainly been changed by the SSA due to it being illegally obtained and plastered all over the web by the incompetent attorney Orly Taitz.

      • nbc says:

        All the references linked to the number trace back to President Obama, living at known addresses. Even the 1890, and the 1990 Date of Birth ones all link back to President Obama.
        The first use I have found by President Obama is on his selective services form, the last is on his IRS filings.
        The entry is now tagged with a code which may indicate a reassignment because of fraud or harassment. Which makes sense as some have widely distributed the number, opening it up for potential abuse.
        If the SSA database had returned ‘no match’, the IRS would have been on top of Obama many many years ago already…

        Furthermore, the CT issue does not require one to have lived in CT, as the SSA has consistently stated that these regional codes are of limited relevance. In fact, a minor clerical error in reading the return zip-code may explain the CT origin. Having a SSN issues from the CT office is of no particular relevance.

  20. follower says:

    So what! People can really get their panties in a knot about stuff they’ll never get their hands on due to the numerous corrupt individuals minding our public institutions. I’ve always said that the emphasis ought to be on the fraudulent use, for years, of a SSN. There’s real evidence (and unwitting mention of) for that and now apparently at least one law enforcement officer looking into not only that but the forged BC. As they say, a bird in hand, etc. You don’t need to phony up a SSN if you are CURRENTLY a citizen of ANY kind! From this current point’s evidence one can go backwards at one’s leisure!

  21. kwesi says:

    So, the numbers are out of order or in reverse order, or in alphabetical order. It’s obvious that a criminal illegal alien is occupying the WH and, to boot, he’s a complete charlatan. What about the Rezco deal? What about the Solyndra deal? What about his non-appearance at Columbia? What about Indonesia? What about the SSN? What about…well, you fill in the next 200 ???s. What about the dozens of voter fraud examples that got him through the election? We’ve had our dose of liberal guilt and the affirmative action promotion of some ethnic… “just because”.

    Vote O’Bama! Vote ALL criminal illegal aliens!

    • kwesi says:

      What about his Kenya relatives who say he was born in Kenya? Let’s talk to Auntie Zeituni and Uncle Omar.

      Vote O’Bama! Vote ALL criminal illegal aliens!

    • John Woodman says:

      What about the fact that his economic policies are destroying our future? Frankly, if I were to take on another issue than the forgery ones, I think that might be one I might gravitate towards. But as mentioned in another comment, I’m not planning on trying to take on another issue at this point, because I’m just one person and I don’t have the “bandwidth.”

      • Slartibartfast says:

        You are aware that President Obama’s policies and positions are to the right of President Nixon’s, aren’t you? If our future has been destroyed it is at the hands of the corporatists and their Republican (and some Democratic) enablers.

  22. kwesi says:

    Why not find out who’s BC no. 10641 belongs to? Stop this guy before it’s too late!

    Vote O’Bama! Vote ALL criminal illegal aliens!

  23. Jim Robertson says:

    I do not understand why both sides of the argument are not pressing the Department of Health in Hawaii for open public examination of the original documents. That, to me, would show more respect for Americans and would be much more efficient and thorough. Examining a birth document back side of a child born two weeks after Obama seems a round about way of presenting a final argument of what is the truth.

    • John Woodman says:

      We work with the info we have.

      I’m sure a full forensic examination of the original, conducted by a bipartisan team of 8 experts at the top of their fields, would probably go a long way to lay the issue to rest. It would also be a national spectacle and would be regarded by about half the population as an unjust humiliation of our first black President — and many of them would believe, rightly or wrongly, in white racism as a prime motivation in such a spectacle. It would also likely produce decades of resentment when nothing was found — as I am personally fairly well convinced, at this point, that nothing would be.

      Nonetheless, such a spectacle could still be justified IF we had some good strong evidence that the birth certificate is indeed a forgery. But as I’ve shown through my own 3-month investigation, unless somebody produces something VERY new and very strong — and I think we’re about down to the bottom of the well — we don’t.

      That being the case, there is every indication that trying to force such an event would take us down a blind alley, and I don’t think the ending of the story would really be a happy one for anybody, conservatives included.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Well said!

        Initially, asking if President Obama was eligible was fine (Hillary Clinton and John McCain both did – and decided it wasn’t an issue worth pursuing – the sort of adversarial vetting set up by the Constitution, by the way, – but the birthers (upon repeatedly receiving the answer, “yes, President Obama is eligible for his office) continue to make up lies (like the ones you have ably debunked) to mislead people otherwise. While all birthers are certainly not racist, a goodly number of them are (sorry birthers – lie down with dogs, get up with fleas…) and the movement as a whole is dripping with racism. Asking the first African-American president, who, alone of his predecessors, has been completely transparent with his birth certificate (which he released over 3 years ago) and went to the extraordinary step of having a long form birth certificate made and released (which required a personal request from the POTUS as it wasn’t current policy to release such a form) to further document something that not a single person could gainsay in any court in the land (successfully, anyway) seems pretty racist to me.

        We’ve got serious problems to solve, and while I’m sure that we disagree completely on their solutions, I think we can both agree that further attention to the eligibility issue (other than to debunk it) doesn’t help solve any of them and probably just creates more problems.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Because a respect for the Constitution and the law dictates that President Obama has proven his natural born citizenship and that any further information is none of our business. Why aren’t the birthers vetting Bachman, Perry, or Romney’s birth certificates? Could it be because of their obvious disdain for the Constitution and hate for President Obama? Why is he the only president who’s EVER had to “show his papers”? (He’s also the only president to ever have a court of law declare him a natural born citizen, by the way…)

      • PatinGA says:

        You are confused. Obama has never been declared a natural born citizen. That was John McCain.
        Obama can never be a natural born citizen due to the fact his father was not a citizen. 18 year old mother does not count.

        • NBC says:

          You are confused. Obama has never been declared a natural born citizen. That was John McCain.
          Obama can never be a natural born citizen due to the fact his father was not a citizen. 18 year old mother does not count.

          Ankeny v Daniels

          Geez, you are not very well up to date with the issues. And natural born requires only one thing: Birth on soil.

          My goodness sakes… You come so ill prepared. But I thought you said you were not a birther….

        • gorefan says:

          Not according to William Rawle,
          “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” 1826, “A View of the Constitution of the United States”

          William Rawle was a Philadelphia lawyer. In Feburary, 1787 (several months before the Constitutional Convention began), he became a member of the new foemed “Society of Political Inquiry”. This was a group of influential Philadelphians who met at Ben Franklin’s house (Franklin was a personal friend) to discuss politics. Its membership included Thomas Paine (he wrote the society’s rules), Benjamin Rush (signer of the Declaration of Independence), and Robert Morris (the only man to sign the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution).

          President Washington offered Rawle the position of Attorney General of the United States (Rawle turned it down for personal reasons). Late President Washington offered Rawle the position of United States Attorney for the District of Philadelphia. It was Rawle who prosecuted the rebels from the Wiskey Rebellion.

          • NBC says:

            Yes, history, scholarly resource and legal resources are not kind to the birther argument which appeals to a Vattelian interpretation. Reality is that all that is needed is birth on soil.

  24. PatinGA says:



    says on page 231 under the section “Race and color” the following:

    “Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and “other nonwhite.”

    “Both US and UK governments used Negro and black respectively to refer to Barack Obama, Sr”

    If Obama’s mother had filled out his birth certificate, would she not have used the word “Kenyan” if she wasn’t sure of race?
    BUT, I have 3 children and did not fill out birth certificate for either of them. Was done by hospital.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Assuming that Barack Obama Sr. was asked his race, “African” is a completely reasonable answer (“negro” is not, by the way – it’s an American word that wasn’t in common use in Kenya). It’s appearance in a field which is self-reported is completely unremarkable.

      • PatinGA says:

        I think you have just proved my point.

        1) An official birth certificate is not “self reported”. It is documented by the birth hospital/staff. Obama,Sr nor mother would have contributed to this fact other than stating Sr. was born in Africa. Hospital staff would have filled in space with legal classification according to vital statistics.

        2) Supposedly.. Obama was born in United States, therefore, language of US would be used. Not Kenyan. Doesn’t matter what word is used in Kenya.

        • John Woodman says:

          There are a lot of factors, actually, that play into this.

          First, Hawaii has quite a few various and mixed nationalities. Many of these are native Hawaiian and Asian.

          Secondly, from what I’ve seen, the official categories used by, for example, the US government and probably some lower levels as well, are broad summary categories. In other words, there is room in systems for people to report things like “Hawaiian.” “Polynesian.” Then at some level, things that are more specific get lumped into broader categories like “Native American” or “Asian.” And in some cases, that may be a judgment call on the part of the person doing the summary classification.

          Hawaii, by virtue of its remote Pacific location, ethnic makeup and history, is distinctly different from any other US State. Even today, the black population of Hawaii is very small. And even today, 50 years after Obama’s birth and from 4,000 miles away, I can note some actual differences in language. People in Hawaii seem to tend to say “Aloha” instead of “hello” or “goodbye.” We spell Hawaii “Hawaii.” They spell it with an apostrophe: “Hawai’i.”

          The birth information would’ve been filled in at the hospital, with the major supplying sources being the attending physician and Stanley Ann Dunham Obama. I’m not 100% certain whether Obama Sr was or was not present at his son’s birth. If he was, he would’ve undoubtedly stated his own race as “African.” If not, he would’ve described himself as “African” to his wife. And I personally doubt a young white woman in 1961 would prefer to describe her husband as “Negro” when she could’ve used the more exotic term “African.”

          For all of these reasons, I personally don’t find the use of the term “African” to be particularly remarkable.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          (1) The “RACE” field on the birth certificate is self reported – i.e. a nurse (or someone) asks the mother and father their race. All you’ve done is prove that you don’t understand what you’re talking about.

          (2) His father was born and raised in Kenya, so if he was asked what his race was we should expect him to answer like someone born and raised in Kenya (and such a person describing their race as “African” seems reasonable to me).

          Please try to exercise critical thought instead of your confirmation bias – there’s nothing wrong with ignorance, but it’s not a virtue.

          • PatinGA says:

            “African” is not a race. It means a citizen of Africa.
            Vital Statistics allows for the race of Hawaiian.
            I believe Polynesian falls into this category.

            IF Obama Sr. was present at the birth, his race would have been obvious. The nurse would have called him Negro in 1961. They were not as “politically correct” as we are today.

            • nbc says:

              African is the preferred race in Kenya. Since as I have shown race is self reported, you are wrong.

              What you are pointing out is that when the reported race of the parents is used to define the race of the child, it is based on a set of possible codes. One should not confuse the two..

            • gorefan says:

              The DOH spokesman told Factcheck.org

              “Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.” ”


              WND post a LFBC obtained in March, 2011. The mother race is listed as Hawaiian, Chinese, Korean, English, German, Portuguese.


              In 1962, the Kenya Census form instructioned Kenyans to list race as “African”


            • PatinGA says:

              Your last link refers to a census for Kenya and simply asks for nationality – Somalian, European, etc. This would not apply to a birth certificate for United States. We have our own race classification here.

            • gorefan says:

              No, it shows the category as race not nationality. You considered them nationalities, in 1961 Kenya considered them races.

              And the point is that someone from Kenya, like Obama Sr. would use the term “African” to descibe his race

            • Slartibartfast says:

              “African” is not a race, but “Asian” is? As Mr. Woodman said, if asked, either Barack Obama, Sr. or his wife would most likely have given his race as “African”. Is this so difficult for you to understand? Or, being a birther, does lying and distorting the evidence just come naturally to you?

            • PatinGA says:

              Asaian is absolutely a race, whereas African is not.

            • PatinGA says:

              Asian is absolutely a race, whereas African could apply to any race. There are many whites in Africa.

            • gorefan says:

              In Kenya whites are referred to as European

              “Column 5. Race. – Write European, Arab, Somali or African, etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan.” 1962 Kenya Census Form Instructions

              This how Obama Sr. would have self=reported it.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              PatinGA said: “Asaian [sic] is absolutely a race, whereas African is not.”

              Because they have many countries in Africa and they don’t in Asia? Because there are more variations among Africans than there among Asians?

              We know your argument is bogus, you know your argument is bogus – why don’t you just admit it and move on?

            • John Woodman says:

              Yes, we do actually have an example of a Hawaii birth certificate, from 1995 (when things would’ve been even more “organized” than in 1961), in which the mother’s race is listed — literally — as “Hawaiian/Chinese/Korean/German/English/Portuguese.”

              And this from no less an “authority” than WorldNetDaily!

              Now it’s from a different Honolulu hospital, but the same principle and dynamics undoubtedly apply.

              All of which brings us to the whole difficult dynamic of this thing.

              I already didn’t consider the whole “African race” thing to be very good evidence, for reasons already given.

              But with the example given, I regard it as definitely disproven. For if a mother’s race can be listed as “Hawaiian/Chinese/Korean/German/English/Portuguese” in 1995 (when creeping bureaucracy would’ve likely tightened data standards), then it’s obvious that an African father’s race in 1961 can be listed as… well, African.

              The whole “birther” dynamic is basically: make literally dozens of accusations, and if you can find one that people can’t absolutely answer, then it must be true.

              But if we didn’t have this particular birth certificate example, we wouldn’t have been able to definitively answer the argument — even though it’s a bad one.

              I showed in my book that having dozens of arguments doesn’t necessarily mean that you have any good arguments. The number of arguments may well only reflect the determination of the people bringing the arguments to find one that will “stick.”

              What this particular example highlights for me is, even if Corsi & Co. should find an argument among their dozens that appears good, it could still simply be that they’ve just gotten lucky with others not yet having found the right example or bit of key information to counter it.

              Or, to turn things around a bit: If Barack Obama’s birth certificate actually were a forgery, then surely with all of this hunting and clawing for any and every possible argument — surely by now we would’ve uncovered some evidence that actually held up under scrutiny.

              And we haven’t. To me, the number of arguments, then, starts to become an indicator of how deeply the issue has been explored without ever finding any good evidence of birth certificate forgery.

              Or, the presence of a high number of disproven arguments probably tends to increase the chance that any future argument which seems to be solid is actually an illusion.

              Not that I won’t keep trying to evaluate arguments on their merits. But as I mentioned elsewhere, it seems to me that we’re probably pretty close to the bottom of the well.

            • PatinGA says:

              I agree with much of what you stated. We all attempt to justify whatever we believe. I’m not a “birther” but simply try to look at facts and make up my own mind from those facts.
              So far, I haven’t seen any facts that are acceptable. So, there still remains the question.

            • bob says:

              As noted, the Department of Health plainly stated that race is self-reported. You ignoring that fact.

            • Slartibartfast says:


              From your comments, I’m guessing that a “fact” is “acceptable” if it disparages President Obama. Mr. Woodman has taken a scientific point of view and showed and shown that none of the LFBC forgery argument stand up to scrutiny – many others have taken a Constitutional point of view and showed that none of the birther legal argument have any merit either – as if an 0-80 (or thereabouts) record in court wasn’t a pretty good indicator already. All of the questions about President Obama’s eligibility have been answered to the satisfaction of all reasonable people – why are you still asking?

            • PatinGA says:

              Bob – The term “African” would not have been accepted or documented as a RACE on any US birth certificate in 1961. Obama, Sr or Stanley Ann Dunham may have given his race as African but would probably have been translated to Negro on a birth certificate. The term African could apply to several races from Africa. Information and terms that are used in Kenya do not automatically transfer to usage in American documents. An Hawaiian term might possibly be used but a Kenyan/African term would not.

            • gorefan says:


              No, it shows the category as race not nationality. You considered them nationalities, in 1961 Kenya considered them races.

              And the point is that someone from Kenya, like Obama Sr. would use the term “African” to descibe his race.

        • nbc says:

          An official birth certificate is not “self reported”

          Actually, if you check, you would notice that the parents fill out a significant part of the document. Race is not enforced in categories but rather coded when entered into the official databases. You can see the pencil marks on President Obama’s COLB that show how this happened in those days.

          So once you realize that race is not defined by the hospital, you then need to understand what term the parents would have used. And given the evidence I presented, the term African appears to be quite plausible.

          For birth certificates, currently the race of the newborn is not collected and, for reporting purposes, is based on the race of the mother, which she is to self-report.

          Since the foundation of your argument that race is not self reported has been shown to be flawed, I suggest you may try again.

          • PatinGA says:

            Self -reported and self -documented are not the same thing. The response was in regard to self-documented. The hospital would have documented according to their limited amount of race codes at the time. 1961

            • gorefan says:

              Look at the President’s long form. Next to the word African is a penciled number 9. What is the ninth category of race according to the NCHS in 1961?

              Other (non) white.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Do you realize that your resistance to admitting the obvious casts serious doubts on the merits of your “questions”? I believe that the reason that birthers will never admit that one of their theories is wrong is because, since all of their theories are wrong (and thus there is no way to separate out a theory from the others as “wrong”) they know that if they ever admit something is wrong when cornered then they will eventually have to admit that all of the birther theories are wrong.

            • NBC says:

              Nope, the hospital does not code according to its race codes. Look at some of the other examples. I believe Miki’s shows a mix of three or four entries.

              Based on the self reported data, the health department, not the hospital, derives the code for the race of the child.

    • nbc says:

      Yes, this is the race of the child, which is not reported on birth certificates but derived from the parents’ race and coded into one of several categories.

      You are confusing apples with oranges here.

  25. NBC says:

    Asaian is absolutely a race, whereas African is not.

    The Kenya Census shows you wrong. But that should not bother you now should it?

  26. NBC says:

    So far, I haven’t seen any facts that are acceptable. So, there still remains the question.

    Let’s see: you claim that the race should be one of the ones coded by the DOH. I have shown that the parents self report their race and that the DOH, not the hospital then codes the race of the child based on these. In addition, the provided codes are matched to one of a list of races the DOH tracks.

    I have shown that African was considered a valid descriptor of race in Kenya. And since I have shown how the parents self report their race, I would say that you have to be blind to ignore these simple facts.

  27. NBC says:

    Your last link refers to a census for Kenya and simply asks for nationality – Somalian, European, etc. This would not apply to a birth certificate for United States. We have our own race classification here.

    Yes, but this is not about our race classifications but rather about the parent to self report. The hospital will just report whatever they are being told, the DOH will map them to specific classes.

    Such are the facts.

    Look at the following picture


    Race: Hawaiian/Korean/German/English/Portugues
    Race: Black

    Clearly self reported… Time to admit that you were wrong and that the hospital does not map the reported race to one of several codes.

    Now what?

  28. NBC says:

    Your last link refers to a census for Kenya and simply asks for nationality – Somalian, European, etc.

    Nope it asks for race and one of the answers is African.

    Sorry my friend, you are mistaken again.

    • PatinGA says:

      The “self-reported” race of African which applies to a CENSUS in Kenya would only be applicable in Kenya.
      Does this mean everyone agrees that perhaps Obama was born in Kenya where the race African would be legitimate? 🙂

      • NBC says:

        Still missing the point. In the US parents self-report their race which is then entered on the birth certificate. President Obama’s father would likely has used African when asked about his race, and this was transcribed onto the document.
        That’s all the hospital does.

        Funny how you are willing to abandon evidence, fact, logic and reason in order to avoid having to accept that the President is not natural born.

        Fascinating but you have betrayed yourself …

      • gorefan says:

        Still missing the point – deliberately?

        Obama Sr. would certainly write African on the BC not the American term Negro.

        That’s where the term came from. Obama Sr.

  29. NBC says:

    Oh Patinga, you claim not to be a birher, yet strangely enough someone using your moniker ‘argued

    Why don’t they just investigate and arrest him for being an imposter? Then charge him for Treason!

    Ouch… Do you want to revise your comments?

  30. NBC says:

    Bob – The term “African” would not have been accepted or documented as a RACE on any US birth certificate in 1961. Obama, Sr or Stanley Ann Dunham may have given his race as African but would probably have been translated to Negro on a birth certificate.

    I have shown you that this is a wrong position. In fact, I have shown how 1) race is self reported 2) race is not categorized by the hospital 3) race is categorized by the DOH when filing and used to determine the race class of the child.

    When the facts show you wrong, why do you insist on the same rebutted ‘arguments’?

    Until you accept the simple fact that race is self-reported and not determined by the hospital, you will continue to argue an inaccurate if not erroneous argument.
    Now if you could show that hospitals get to define race on the birth certificate, but that’s already something I have shown not to be so with the Miki Booth provided long form.

    Now what?

  31. NBC says:

    The CDC provides a sample template for the mother

    10. What is your race? (Please check one or more races to indicate what you consider yourself to be).


    And the form indicates a long list include ‘other’ please specify.


    22. MOTHER’S RACE (Check one or more races to indicate what the mother considers herself to be)

    Again: Other (please specify)

    Same for

    25. FATHER’S RACE (Check one or more races to indicate what the father considers himself to be)

  32. NBC says:

    Similarly we learn

    Much has changed since the 1960s, as racial and ethnic classifications become more realistic on paper. Within the early 1960s, race information on birth certificates was open-ended, meaning that there were no races to choose from. Respondents entered whatever race category he felt the infant fit into. Things changed in the late 60s.

    What have you to offer?

  33. NBC says:


    Birth records include information, usually obtained by self-report, on the race and ethnicity of the parents

    Source: Vital and health statistics: Documents and committee reports: Issue 31

    I could go on and on… Have you found anything to support your position yet?

  34. PatinGA says:

    As I have said, I do not consider myself a birther. I try not to form my opinion based on someone else’s facts but follow my own observations and details.
    I have no respect for Barack Obama and feel he has denigrated the office of president and is doing great harm to this country.
    You will not convince me otherwise, just as anything I say will not convince you to change the way you think.
    But, I have enjoyed the conversation! Thank you.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      You’re free to feel what you want, although you should show respect for the office even if you don’t respect the man (I really hated doing that during President Bush’s administration…). But when you start questioning President Obama’s Constitutional eligibility, then you are putting yourself in the company of liars, bigots, idiots, and racists in opposition to the facts. To paraphrase John Wayne, you might not have voted for him, but he’s your president too and you should hope he does a good job.

    • gorefan says:

      I’m not surprised that you are running away.

      Final question – yes or no

      Do you know more about the United States in the 1780’s then William Rawle?

      • NBC says:

        Who?… I am sure our poor friend is somewhat unfamiliar with the facts, the scholarly research and contemporary sources. He dislikes President Obama and allows this to cloud his judgment.

        As I said, fascinating stuff.

  35. nbc says:

    But, I have enjoyed the conversation! Thank you.

    Busted… Time to lick his wounds…
    What I find fascinating is that he refused to present any evidence to support his claims. That and when the going got tough he retreated to the Vattel position.
    And yet he claims not to be a birther…

    Fascinating cognitive dissonance.

    • PatinGA says:

      Only “busted” in the sense that it is not worth the argument. I will believe the facts that support my view, you will believe the facts that support yours. We are at an impasse.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Sorry, but you have no facts supporting your view, so your argument is completely without merit – you can believe in birther fairy tales all you want, but that wont make them true…

  36. John Woodman covers the “African” race issue in his book quite well in the chapter “Other Issues”. Most likely Stanley Dunham supplied the race for both the father and the mother at the hospital and used “African” as the race for the father. This makes sense for two reasons: First, as has been pointed out, that is what Mr. Obama would have likely called himself and definitely not “negro”. Secondly, in 1961, a white female would probably have called her husband African instead of negro because the prejudice against interracial marriage was still very widespread at that time.

    It is amazing how this issue keeps popping up even though it was settled in 2008. (Well actually not because as one who has watched the Birthers for 3 years I can attest that they are definitely big proponents of recycling).

    • nbc says:

      Yes RC, this makes a lot of sense. What is worse is that there is no evidence for the position that the hospital somehow coded the race of the parents.
      On the contrary, all evidence point to the opposite namely that the race is self reported. Miki Booth presented a long form which had 4 or five entries for race, including German…
      Again, those who are trying to debunk have contributed to the opposite.

  37. NBC says:

    We are at an impasse.

    There is that cognitive dissonance again. You made some assertions of fact which have been all shown to be wrong. The impasse is that you have now returned to your Vattel position and have abandoned any claims about the birth certificate, since you are well aware that your assertions about who fills out what have been totally demolished.

    You made other ill informed comments about no court having found President Obama to be a natural born citizen.
    And worse, you have failed to present ANY evidence to support your position.

    You may call this an impasse, I call this a total debunking.

    • PatinGA says:

      Believe what you will… Any fact I had presented would have been met with ridicule because it wasn’t an “accepted by you” source, just as my simple – thank you for the conversation- was considered a surrender. I don’t live for an argument and time will tell who is closest to the truth in the mystery known as Barack Obama. Just because someone writes a book doesn’t make it the truth.

  38. nbc says:

    I don’t live for an argument and time will tell who is closest to the truth in the mystery known as Barack Obama. Just because someone writes a book doesn’t make it the truth.

    True, but when someone makes claims which are shown to be wrong such as the who reports the race on the birth certificate, it is clear that, absent any evidence presented to the contrary, this position should be rejected.

    It’s your behavior after you were shown to be wrong that indicts you my friend.

    As you are claiming not to be a birther, you should not have any reason to continue to argue the indefensible. Given that your own words appear to betray you, it is even more relevant to point out that you have not only failed to support your claims but also that when shown to be wrong, you, so far, have refused to admit to your follies.

    To hide behind: Any fact would have been met with ridicule, is just another example of projecting, where you believe that others would be no different from how you would approach such a topic.

    Since I have shown to be quite interested in evidence to support your position, I have no choice but to reject your claims.

  39. PatinGA says:

    Hahahaha…. You are just a first year psychology student, aren’t you? Practicing what you think you learned on me! I’m finished with you. Not worth my time… Don’t bother to post any more of your psycho analysis directed to me. I won’t respond.

  40. nbc says:

    Don’t bother to post any more of your psycho analysis directed to me. I won’t respond.

    I understand, it was quite predictable when you made somewhat foolish assertions about the hospital assigning race on the birth certificate, and you were rebutted with actual references that showed this to be wrong. Having to accept that one is wrong is not always easy, especially when one is so heavily invested in the outcome.

    For a while I assumed that you had some facts and evidence to share with us. Now I appreciate better that this was more of a bluff.

    Very interesting.

  41. Pingback: Anonymous

  42. Royce says:

    Great exercise. How come you can not read the Department of Health above the number? Not even one letter, even though on other parts of the document much of the type is legible. Looks like you have been punked by Woofer.
    I must say WND should release the birth certificate number. At least the 61 and the first 3 digits.
    It is going to be hard to counter when the original Virginia Sunahara bc number matches Obama’s number. Will you believe he is a total fraud then? Until then we can play cat and mouse. What about Justiagate? Have you heard about the 1811 newspaper that Madison, the father of the Constitution explains, McClure is not a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, because his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth? How about SR511 where McCain is determined to be a natural born citizen by virtue of his citizen parents? Obama co-sponsored the bill.

    • John Woodman says:


      Great exercise. How come you can not read the Department of Health above the number? Not even one letter, even though on other parts of the document much of the type is legible.

      I’m not sure from this comment whether you even really read the article, or whether you understood it if you did. First of all, I can personally make out at least the “OF” and one or two other letters. Secondly, the reason that that particular phrase is less legible is because its letters are approximately 1/4th the size of the certificate number digits. I would actually think that ought to be fairly obvious.

      As for the type being legible on other parts of the document, do you not understand that we are going right through the entire sheet of paper and reading, through graphic enhancement, the text that is on the other side of the back-side photograph? If you don’t get that, I don’t know what else to say except that you need to actually re-read the article and attempt to understand it.

      Looks like you have been punked by Woofer.

      I’m afraid not. One could certainly argue that Jerome Corsi and Paul Irey have attempted to “punk” the public by not disclosing a certificate number they were in possession of that completely disproved one of Corsi’s star claims. One could also say that they have been “punked” by the outing of the extremely embarassing information that they themselves failed (refused?) to disclose. In that case, you could say that Woofer has “punked” Corsi and Irey.

      I must say WND should release the birth certificate number. At least the 61 and the first 3 digits.

      It’s clear enough what it is.

      It is going to be hard to counter when the original Virginia Sunahara bc number matches Obama’s number. Will you believe he is a total fraud then?

      Sunahara’s birth certificate number — 11080 — has just been made public. Of course it doesn’t match the expectations of those who claim, on the basis of… nothing whatsoever except for a KNOWN AND DEMONSTRATED FALSE claim by Jerome Corsi as to how the certificates were processed.

      Until then we can play cat and mouse. What about Justiagate?

      The so-called “Justiagate” might have some meaning if Minor v. Happersett meant what Leo Donofrio claims it means. It’s abundantly clear that it doesn’t. The Supreme Court in Minor themselves stated that it doesn’t!

      Have you heard about the 1811 newspaper that Madison, the father of the Constitution explains, McClure is not a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, because his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth?

      Yes, I have. Although it’s far from clear that Madison was the author of that particular newspaper article, and though the author himself admits that it’s just his opinion and that someone else entirely knowledgeable and honest might well take the opposite view, that still happens to be one of two valid points that the Vattel birthers have. Unfortunately, it’s a weak point. And it (along with their other minor point) appear to be vastly outweighed by the entire preponderance of all the other evidence.

      How about SR511 where McCain is determined to be a natural born citizen by virtue of his citizen parents? Obama co-sponsored the bill.

      You left out the part about his citizen parents being important because he was NOT born on US soil.

      In fact, the very acknowledgment that McCain was deemed eligible to the Presidency would appear to be a big problem for the Vattel birthers, because they claim that BOTH a birth on US soil AND two US citizen parents are required to make a natural born citizen. McCain was born in Panama! Therefore, if he’s eligible, then it doesn’t look as if the Vattel definition of “natural born citizen” can be the correct one.

      From all I’ve seen (and by now I’ve seen quite a bit), I’ve no doubt personally that if the Supreme Court were to issue a ruling as to the definition of “natural born citizen,” they would say that it’s equivalent to being a citizen from birth, and that there are basically two routes to such a status: being born a US citizen because of birth on US soil to parents “under US jurisdiction” (i.e., children of diplomats and occupying armies are excluded), or being born a US citizen due to your parents (in the case, for example, of John McCain.)

      In other words, either the right of the soil — jus soli — or the right of blood — jus sanguinis — is sufficient to confer natural born citizen status. You don’t have to have both.

    • John Woodman says:

      Royce, someone pointed out that maybe you were looking at the image currently posted at WND’s site?

      The image that is there now is not the original one that they posted. After having posted images of the certificate, they changed them. This was what Woofer told me about. Having heard that, and being curious, I personally went to google’s cache and was able to fish out the image they had had posted before they swapped them.

      It was this original image that revealed the birth certificate number. It has literally been edited out of the image that they replaced it with.

  43. Woofer says:

    I certainly did not punk anyone. I merely pointed out that WND had replaced the original birth certificate with a more redacted copy. I had begun to look at the scan of the back side and noticed some text appeared to be visible. John Woodman was clever enough to to figure out the number was legible with some enhancement and realize that it was significant. I suppose that is what immersing oneself in studying images for months will do.

    Anyone can do the same analysis with your favorite photo editing software as long as it has a feature to do a mirror image flip. Gimp is the one I used.

    • John Woodman says:

      Just to note: “punk” (as a verb) is one of those recently-minted slang words that can have multiple meanings. When I said:

      In that case, you could say that Woofer has “punked” Corsi and Irey.

      the meaning I was referring to was “to badly defeat or humiliate.”

      And yes, anyone should be able to do the same analysis. GIMP is free. Paint.Net (also a free program) might do the job as well.

      • gorefan says:

        I think you may have misunderstood Royce. He went to the WND this weekend and downloaded the BC and cannot see the certification numbers. Over at Butterdezillion site a RoyceLatham says that the numbers are not there now. That maybe what he means by you were punked.

        • John Woodman says:

          Ah. Well… the numbers “aren’t there now” because the folks at WND swapped in a new image of the back of the certificate, from which the certificate number had been edited out. The change of images was what Woofer had alerted me to.

          The new image was already up when I wrote the article. It was the original image of the back of the certificate, fished out of google’s cache of WND’s article, that revealed the birth certificate number.

          • gorefan says:

            I guess i misunderstood the timeline.

            I thought Woofer alerted you that the front of the BC had been redacted. And the change to the back of the BC only happened after you showed the cert number was legible.

          • John Woodman says:

            What caught Woofer’s attention (as I understood it) was that the front image of the certificate had been altered. That is, a different image than the one originally posted with the article had been posted in its place. The new image had more of its information hidden than the original one did.

            Woofer had posted:

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

            That was very interesting to me. What turned out to be even more interesting, though, when I fished both the front and back original images out of google’s cache of that article, was the back image — since it soon became apparent that the certificate number might be recovered, and that the certificate number might contain some interesting and significant information.

            And as it turns out, it most certainly did. 🙂

          • John Woodman says:

            By the way, to fully answer your post: The original back image as well as the original front one had already been replaced by the time I consulted WND’s site, following Woofer’s observation.

            I had to fish both images out of google’s cache.

          • Woofer says:

            I had forgotten that WND replaced the image of the back too. Did Paul Irey ever explain why they had to redact practically the entire birth certificate? That made his analysis somewhat laughable because there were very few letters left and he expected readers to take his word for it on letters that were redacted.

            Too bad he chose not to participate in the debate. That would have been a good question to ask him.

            • John Woodman says:

              > Did Paul Irey ever explain why they had
              > to redact practically the entire birth
              > certificate?


  44. Woofer says:

    This item is somewhat off topic but related to WND: Jerome Corsi published an article last year on birth certificate numbers and why the fact that the Nordyke certificate numbers could not be lower than the Obama certificate number. He cites this as proof of fraud. http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/299781/ In the article he claims to have uncovered an article from a 1955 edition of the Hawaii Medical Journal that tells how birth certificates were numbered in those days. He says: “But a 1955 article by Charles Bennett, Hawaii’s registrar general in 1961, and George Tokuyama, chief of the registration and records section for the state’s Department of Health, stated birth certificates were numbered immediately upon acceptance by the registrar-general.”

    The only problem is that the article, which is linked by Corsi, http://www.wnd.com/files/CHARLESBENNETT.pdf, says nothing of the sort. It doesn’t say anything at all about when the certificates are numbered. It is an interesting article about how the territory of Hawaii was modernizing its record keeping systems and was trying to bring the systems in line with practices recommended by the National Office of Vital Statistics.

    Corsi hasn’t even bothered to go back and do a sneaky edit on this one. It would require that most of the article be rewritten. WND rightly assumes that few of their readers will actually read beyond the headline.

    • John Woodman says:

      It might be a bit off topic, but I don’t find it to be terribly so.

      I actually covered this issue in the book. Of course, folks who are only following the blog and haven’t read the full book wouldn’t have seen that chapter.

      Fact is, there is a LOT of interesting information in the book that simply hasn’t been publicly covered anywhere else. I counted around 20 different “revelations” in the book that were either completely new, or were almost entirely untalked-about, before the book was written. 🙂

  45. can i just say this is great. sooner or later…. we’ll know for sure.
    good luck in the debate john, and if you say you’re not an obot, then i respect that, and i apologise for calling you one.

    i think we all want the truth, this race may end up in a photo finish.

  46. Pingback: Democrat sues to remove obama from ballot - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 7 - City-Data Forum

  47. Pingback: Someone clue me in here? - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 3 - City-Data Forum

  48. Pingback: More birther news - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 18 - City-Data Forum

  49. Pingback: Steve McGarrett's Sheriff Joe Arpaio/Det. Mark Zullo 1pm Live Press Conference Thread: New Information To Be Released - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 13 - Ci

  50. Pingback: Hawaii Official now swears (In affidavit) - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 137 - City-Data Forum

  51. John Woodman says:

    April 2012: Having reached firm conclusions on the birther movement (see my various most recent and wrap-up posts), I’m moving on, and to facilitate that I’m closing comment sections of this blog as I do so.

    My feeling is that the things that need to be said have already been said.

    That said, if you feel you have a comment to some post here that’s really, REALLY important and ought to be added to the site, email it to me. If I agree, I’ll add it.


    John Woodman

  52. Pingback: FILM: Obama's Father was not Barrack Obama Senior! - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 10 - City-Data Forum

  53. Pingback: Sheriff Joe's Birther Press Conference II: Electric Boogaloo - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 27 - City-Data Forum

  54. Pingback: Computer Systems Analyst/Web Designer Expert Garrett Papits New Evidence Released Proves Obama's BC A Definite Forgery - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 8 - Ci

  55. Pingback: Political Nightmare For White House: ABC News Questions The Validity Of Obama's Birth Certificate - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 3 - City-Data Forum

Comments are closed.