Paul Irey Refuses to Publicly Debate the Fonts

It’s official.

I spoke with Paul Irey this morning, and he stated that he won’t be taking me up on my challenge to debate, in the largest possible venue, the evidence regarding the fonts.

If you’ve been following the issue, you’ll know that Mr. Irey claims, based on his 50 years of typography experience, that different fonts are clearly used in President Barack Obama’s birth certificate — meaning that it’s a clear forgery. Irey has claimed that his  evidence was “irrefutable,” that “There’s no doubt the Obama birth certificate is a forgery,” and that he was willing to stake his reputation on the claim.

I have presented evidence in my book that first, Mr. Irey’s original analysis was so flawed as to make it completely useless (and I state exactly why), and secondly, that there doesn’t actually seem to be any decent evidence that any different fonts were used.

On the contrary, my own careful analysis, conducted over a period of days, produced results that were pretty much in line with what I would have expected from a genuine document.

Mr. Irey has stated that he “knew” in advance that the birth certificate was a forgery and was “just looking for what I could find to prove that.”1

I didn’t start simply attempting to prove the matter one way or the other; I was open to going either direction. I searched for some good evidence, but frankly, I didn’t find any.

So… Mr. Irey said that he would be happy to debate me… except

Except that he has become friends with Dr. Jerome Corsi (the world’s most widely-known proponent of the birth certificate forgery theories), and he doesn’t think Dr. Corsi would like for him, by debating me, to shine any light of attention on my book. The implication seems to be that if my book were more widely known, that might not be a good thing for Dr. Corsi. (I can believe that, of course, but it’s an interesting admission.)

This is made more ironic by the fact that originally, Irey actually “beat me to the punch” by challenging me to a mini-debate in the comments page of his article. He was willing to debate me then, because the venue was small, the stakes were low and he had no idea what my analysis was or what I might say. Now that the stakes have gone up and he’s read my actual analysis, Mr. Irey has backed out.

All of this, of course, raises the question: If Jerome Corsi has good evidence, then why doesn’t he welcome scrutiny of it? And if Paul Irey’s evidence is any good, then why wouldn’t Corsi welcome an open debate about it?

Why, indeed, have Corsi and WorldNetDaily studiously avoided any mention at all that John Woodman or his book even exist?

Dr. Corsi has known about my initial 4 videos for 3 months. Joseph Farah’s office knew 2 months ago that my book was coming. And it’s actually been out now for a month. It’s even been the topic of some fairly extensive discussion in the comments on Paul Irey’s last article at WorldNetDaily’s own web site.

Farah and Corsi continue to publicize that they have “more than 20 computer, document and imaging experts who argue, supported by their evidence, that the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ released on April 27 by Obama is a fraud.”

But as for encouraging anybody to read and evaluate John Woodman’s careful 221-page analysis — all we hear from WorldNetDaily is the sound of crickets chirping.

1, at 72 minutes.

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

10 Responses to Paul Irey Refuses to Publicly Debate the Fonts

  1. AAfterwit says:

    Irey initially claimed the fonts used on the birth certificate were from a different family. When we asked him to identify the fonts, or at least the class of fonts that were different, he never came back to our site.

    The key here is Irey is a typographer. He ran a typesetting and printing company. That is totally different than having the expertise he claims in the area of computer generated imaging.

    I have worked with old time printers – printers that made plates and actually set type away from those “new fangled computer thingies.” They could look at a font and tell you the family, the weight and the point size.

    Irey cannot.

    The bottom line is that while Corsi and his merry band of people traipse around telling people the certificate is a fraud and to get on their Representatives, all they are really interested in is making money off of this.

    That is why he won’t debate you. Your book might hurt their sales.

    The birther issue to some is an issue of conscience and the law. To Corsi, it is nothing more than a way to make money.

    • John Woodman says:

      Well, you would certainly think that if the truth were what they were interested in, they would quite prominently cover what would seem to be by far the most extensive (221 pages) and careful (an estimated 500 hours) analysis of the birth certificate to date… wouldn’t you?

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Yes. You would. Anyone examining Corsi and Farah’s actions with even a modicum of objectivity would be forced to agree with Aafterwit’s conclusions.

  2. Patrick says:

    So, Paul Irey is a little pansy who is against free speech. He once threatened me with arrest because I said birthers are liars, which they are.

    • John Woodman says:

      I’m curious, Patrick. Where and when was this?

      As far as “birthers” — or “Obots” — being liars, I would think that would depend on the specific person. In any large debate, I would expect that there are both liars and sincere believers on both sides.

      While it’s an inexact science, I do agree that someone’s behavior can sometimes provide a good clue as to what their actual beliefs and attitudes are.

      • Patrick says:

        It happened on the WND forums.

        Here’s his comment to my post:

        You know of course that the three posts above are defending the crime of forgery. I think that might be a crime also … it’s called “accessory after the fact” … like when someone disputes evidence of a bank robbery where the money was found in robbers house and these three jerks say … no … no … he is innocent. We are talking about a serious crime. Do you guys realize the the forger may confess that he did it for Obama to stay out of jail? Then I bet you all go and hide under your desks. You are just trying to cover up for your hero. Two of you are doing it for pay. If that can be proven you know that after Obama goes to jail … you may go with him because you were paid to defend a criminal … in print … with lies. It’s a definite forgery and there is nothing you can say to defend it. Letters don’t GROW from any kind of typing problem. Everyone here knows that … and you guys are criminals if you know that and still babble on telling us outrageous reasons for letters growing just to protect a criminal. Really … you should all go to jail.

      • Patrick says:

        And no, it does not depend upon the person where birthers are concerned. I have never met a birther who wasn’t a liar. You can show some, for instance, unmistakable proof that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, no matter the citizenship of their parents (the ruling of Wong Kim Ark), and they will keep right on lying.

  3. John Woodman says:

    April 2012: Having reached firm conclusions on the birther movement, I’m moving on, and closing comment sections of this blog as I do so.

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


    John Woodman

Comments are closed.