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 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rcr/2011/06/24/reality-check-radio, at 72 minutes.