Laurie Roth AGAIN Ignores Reality to Repeat Disproven Claims of “Verified” “Total Forgery and Fraud”

Once again, Presidential candidate Laurie Roth apparently can’t be bothered to find out the truth about big claims of fraud that she’s making for the record over at Canada Free Press.

Nor has Dr. Roth responded to any of my three previous emails to her, or to the article that I recently wrote. Maybe she’s not getting her email. I’ve found a different way to email her; I’ll try that once things settle down after Thanksgiving.

In a new article, Dr. Roth writes:

These days there is no ‘tin helmet’ conspiracy but the horrifying truth we already know about this President. I believe it clear that Obama is ineligible to be in the office of President. Otherwise, why would he have shown the media and country a forgery of a long form birth certificate on April 27th? Even though this was verified by Doug Vogt, veteran document examiner and many others as a total forgery and fraud, the media and Republican establishment were silent. This is beyond shameful and absolutely treacherous.

By the way, I actually agree with Roth as far as the silence of the media goes. Whether the claims ultimately had merit or not, this is an issue that should have been covered by the mainstream media. Even at this late date, it still ought to be.

Unfortunately though, as we now know, none of the sources Roth is relying on hold up to actual scrutiny.

In this and in past articles, she seems to place particular faith in Douglas Vogt, who runs a scanner business in Washington state.

[Note: In an earlier version of this post, I talked about some of Mr. Vogt’s credentials and past record. I eventually decided to delete that portion of this post. In the past seven months of dealing with this issue, I have never before attacked anybody’s credentials, preferring instead to focus on an analysis of the facts and the arguments.

While my own credentials have been attacked recently in the most superficial of ways, I’ve decided to go back, for the moment at least, to my original way of doing things — which is to simply focus on the facts.]

I have read all three versions of Mr. Vogt’s affidavit on Obama’s birth certificate. And none of the claims he makes stand up to any scrutiny.

Let me give you an idea of the quality of Vogt’s published work here: one of his claims was that the two registrar signature stamps were of different sizes, and that supposedly proved forgery. The claim was so embarrassingly and obviously wrong that he dropped it from a later version of his affidavit.

And remember, this claim was made in a document intended to be presented as a sworn affidavit of expert testimony, in a court of law, accusing the President of the United States of having committed a criminal, impeachable offense.

I’ve corresponded very briefly with Doug Vogt, and he came across as a likable guy. He seems the kind of person one might gladly go for a beer with. I might even buy a high-end scanner from him if I needed one. I wouldn’t put much faith in his claims on the birth certificate, though.

Vogt claims that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery for 9 different reasons — all of which I investigated in detail before concluding, “I believe we can now regard Vogt’s ‘irrefutable proof’ — in all nine of his points — as clearly refuted.”

Let me briefly list his nine major points, and why they’re wrong:

1) Curved and non-curved type.

This is simply wrong — because the type that both Doug Vogt and Karl Denninger claim isn’t curved clearly has a curve, as demonstrated in my book.

2) The white halo.

Irrelevant because all of the evidence indicates it was created by sharpening of the image. This was also the conclusion of Ivan Zatkovich, the original expert WorldNetDaily hired to examine the document — but then dropped because he didn’t support the forgery theory.

3) The separation between “binary” (that is, solid-color) and grayscaled letters.

This was created by optimization, just as in the other files known to be scanned and optimized, that I gave as examples in my book.

4) The out-of-sequence certificate number.

This was shown not to be a proof in my book, and then later conclusively disproven at this very blog.

The disproof came courtesy of new evidence inadvertently published by Jerome Corsi, who pushed the original claim, and who has never publicly retracted it — even though the evidence that he himself published at WorldNetDaily disproved it! (See earlier article).

5) Different colors in the Registrar date stamp areas.

An artifact of the same optimization. The precise reasons why we have the different shades of green (why green?) in the date stamps are very clearly and logically explained in my book.

6) The official seal not being part of the certificate, and being the wrong size.

Simply wrong, as shown in my book. I demonstrated that the document Savannah Guthrie photographed (which has a visible raised seal, also confirmed by Guthrie’s personal testimony) and the PDF are necessarily images of the same thing. I further showed that the seal was the same size as that used by the Hawaii Department of Health on a “known legitimate” birth certificate.

7) The supposed misspelling of the word “THE,” a claim that the stamp is “too straight on the form,” and the supposed “E” in the capital “A” of “Alvin.”

As documented in the book, the “H” in “THE” actually shows evidence of being an “H” rather than anything else; the stamp slants slightly upward (and wouldn’t be proof of fraud even if it didn’t), and the very weak claim of the supposed “E” in “Alvin” is a cockamamie fabrication similar to the supposed face on Mars.

8.) The fact that parts of the signatures by Stanley Ann Dunham and the Registrar are single-color, and parts are grayscaled.

Again shown to be identical to the effects seen in known documents, that are known to have been scanned and optimized.

9) The layers and the duplicate characters.

Again shown to be identical to the effects seen in known documents, that are known to have been scanned and optimized.

Actually, counting the “different font sizes” fiasco mentioned earlier, that makes 10 times in a row that Mr. Vogt has struck out.

Presidential candidate Dr. Laurie Roth, though, seems all too happy to take Vogt at his word.

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

19 Responses to Laurie Roth AGAIN Ignores Reality to Repeat Disproven Claims of “Verified” “Total Forgery and Fraud”

  1. i knew this was an obot site

  2. John Woodman says:

    Scott, I’m disappointed in you.

    Am I the only person left in America who stands up for the truth simply because it is the truth, regardless of whether or not it’s convenient?

    Does nobody besides me — conservatives, even, such as yourself — any longer believe in the truth for its own sake?

    Have we progressed to the point where we must now believe in lies, or else hold our tongue when others tell them, in order to be “good”? Is this now the sad state of American conservatism?

    Whatever happened to the values I was taught in church: tell the truth, and stand up for the truth when someone else tells lies?

    Must I stand by and do nothing while my fellow conservatives such as yourself are exploited by those who peddle convenient and pretty falsehood for the sake of money, attention and fame — or else risk incurring myself the judgment and wrath of those same fellow conservatives?

    Apparently so.

  3. John Woodman says:

    I think one of my next posts is likely to be on conservatives who betray conservative values.

  4. John Woodman says:

    I have attempted to contact Dr. Roth for the 4th and final time, sending her the following message:
    Hi Dr. Roth,

    I’m not sure whether you received my earlier email, so I’m sending this via your campaign web site.

    Your claims that Obama’s birth certificate is a verified forgery are simply untrue.

    That being the case, continuing to make those claims not only makes you look bad, it makes conservatives look bad as well.

    I posted an article earlier concerning your claims at my blog, and have now posted a second article concerning your claims.

    You are welcome to respond to the articles if you like. Both of them are available at In any event, I would appreciate hearing back from you.

    You may reach me via email, or via phone at [phone number].

    If I do not hear from you, I will assume that you’ve received my messages, and simply chosen to ignore what I’ve been trying to alert you to, and that you also refuse to respond. In that event, I won’t bother you with any further notification of any articles I might post.

    Best wishes,

    John Woodman

  5. Pingback: Why the Birthers Lost | Investigating the Obama Birth Certificate Mystery

  6. John McPherson says:

    It would be helpful to see a demonstration. I have seen the Arpaio press conferences and they demonstrate the specific issues with layering, halo’s, and OCR assertions. Please share any video demonstrations that you can. Assertions seem to lack in the face of demonstrations.

    • John Woodman says:

      I pretty well demonstrated almost every point that I’ve ever made regarding the birth certificate in the 221-page book I wrote on the subject, which contains more than 70 illustrations. I would suggest you obtain a copy of that.

  7. Scott says:

    Dr. Woodman,
    You offer ‘refutation’ to Mr. Vogt’s evidence that generalizes without offering specifics. I’m not buying your book. I didn’t buy Mr. Vogt’s book either. He didn’t sell one so I didn’t need to. He has been able to prove his points using specifics and even without use of Illustrator although that does make it easier to visualize. You just ‘refute.’ Half you ‘answers’ are ‘its too complicated to get into here so read my book and the other half are ‘see above on optimization.’ You offer no proof without referring people to some book we’re not going to read. Can you not ‘refute’ without claiming its too complicated that a book of 222 pgs. is needed or generalize it so as to mean nothing? 1) “This is simply wrong — because the type that both Doug Vogt and Karl Denninger claim isn’t curved clearly has a curve, as demonstrated in my book.” I’ve SEEN the straight line for myself and the curve. We can’t see a thing cause your book isn’t used to prove anything. 2) “Irrelevant because all of the evidence indicates it was created by sharpening of the image.” all WHAT evidence? 3) “This was created by optimization, just as in the other files known to be scanned and optimized, that I gave as examples in my book.” There’s that book reference again. Why do you feel qualified to say this? I KNOW why Doug feels qualified but you just say “This was created…” without proof. Show it without referring to book. 4) “This was shown not to be a proof in my book, and then later conclusively disproven at this very blog.” Book AND blog now referred to. Can’t see any evidence. 5) “An artifact of the same optimization.” That optimized excuse is getting long in the tooth by now but besides saying so how can you demonstrate it? Quoting someone else means you’re depending on their veracity without having the knowledge yourself to discern its accuracy. 6) “Simply wrong, as shown in my book.” Ugh, the book again so nothing to offer. You say its the same but offer no proof. Did you measure it? Is it 2 1/4? 7) “As documented in the book, …” Just so we’re counting the same that’s 5 out of 7 answers referring to “the book.” It doesn’t prove anything saying its in a book. 8) “Again shown to be identical to the effects seen in known documents, that are known to have been scanned and optimized.” Back to optimized. Either the book or optimized or both is the basic answer du jour. Besides the fact that this just doesn’t work this way. You haven’t shown one example of an optimized document that has bitmap and greyscale together. In fact the bitmap when optimized looks greyscaled. 9) “Again shown to be identical to the effects seen in known documents, that are known to have been scanned and optimized.” Well see my answers above too. Again no proof. OCR doesn’t create all the separate groups seen in Obama’s BC. Have you performed this yourself or are you relying on other’s to coach you on this? Did you try doing optimization on known Hawaiian BCs and get the same effects? Ever?

    • John Woodman says:

      I spent the equivalent of 3 entire months’ full-time work investigating the birth certificate and the forgery theories. You complain that I haven’t explained things to your satisfaction. As far as the PDF file is concerned, I spent over 100 pages thoroughly investigating and explaining the “anomalies” and the forgery theories of that document alone, because there are many forgery theories and detailed explanation and evidence is required as to why those “anomalies” are actually there.

      I invested three months of my life into this. Are you willing to invest even a few bucks and the time to read a book? The reason I spent over 100 pages on the PDF is because that’s how many pages it took to really explain.

      At this point, I am not going to duplicate effort re-explaining things I’ve already explained. For people who want to understand the birth certificate forgery theories, the book is there as a resource.

      I have learned that many people who are interested in the issue are only interested because they want to believe that the current President of the United States is not eligible to his office. That is a belief that has great entertainment value. It allows people to imagine that there is an easy way to change the world: somebody is going to wave a magic wand (also known as an investigation or a lawsuit) and the current President is going to go away, and the world will be all better again. That’s a really comforting world for some people. It means they don’t have to actually do real work — like campaigning for an alternative; and it means they don’t have to wait out the normal political cycles of our country by which — normally — one party holds power for about 8 years, and then the people get tired of that party and switch to the other party.

      There are quire a few people who want to cling to that fantasy world above all else. Well, “above all else” means they are prepared to sacrifice the truth and reality in order to do so. Those people should not buy my book. They should not read it. They should not understand it. They won’t accept it — because they won’t accept the truth — and it will only frustrate them.

      It sounds to me like you are probably one of those people. In that case, I can recommend the writings of Jerome Corsi and Mario Apuzzo to you. They will not make you uncomfortable, but will reenforce what you want to hear.

      • Scott says:

        Dr. Woodman,

        Obama’s far left policies definitely scare me. Being surrounded by so many extremists and even terrorists like Ayers is unnerving. So my motives will be questioned. I’m white, a pastor, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, just about everything Obama is, I ain’t. So go ahead and discount me for saying a thing since “It sounds to you” means you too “wont accept it-because (you) won’t accept the truth.” All this is just verbal sparring. Innocent really.

        But what is scariest to me is the massive amount of ignorance of those who with help from those like you believe things based on having heard it on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. or those with titles and expert this and that before their names. Nothing beats seeing the facts before your eyes. Most have never examined either BC and if so have dismissed because they are predisposed as you claim I am to believe whomever undercuts the evidence. How an issue could be so easily cleared up and conspiracy ideas stopped if only documents, the real paper documents or microfiche were made available to experts. Instead millions have been spent to hide Obama’s past, Passport records, Obama kindergarten records, Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago scholarly articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records/schedules(said to be lost), Medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license, Adoption records and of course the paper long-form Certificate of Live Birth. (My guess is the forger thought the file he gave the WH would be printed and didn’t expect it to be put online in its unflattened form.) Oh and now all INS records for the week of Obama’s birth, Aug. 1 through Aug. 7, 1961. Out of almost 700 files this ONE goes missing! Doesn’t it bother you at all that he is the most unknown-well known public figure in history?

        I’ve looked at the BC personally in Illustrator. If another form or another Hawaiian BC were to be run thru OCR there would never be the kinds of anomalies which seem to be the excuse for everything about the long-form. I haven’t needed a book to understand this issue and was hoping to actually hear cogent arguments against the 4/11 BC but you kept referring to ‘the book’ and expecting ‘us’ to just believe you about optimization when your own expertise is dependent on what someone else tells you. Those like Nathan Goulding National Review’s Chief Tech Officer is lying, under-qualified or just misinformed or all since the anomalies cannot be replicated at home, isn’t ‘similar,’ and ignores how whole bitmap graphics like the signatures at bottom can be moved at will which won’t happen ‘at home.’ The bitmap groups won’t appear no matter how many times they try. OCR won’t even recognize the cursive text. A layer always is generated which is likely what is claimed as how this happens with OCR but this isn’t ‘similar’ to the Obama BC which includes bitmap graphic groups. They are vectors along side jpgs in the same signature with different colors. These things simply don’t happen. Playing with contrast, sharpening, etc isn’t going to change that or replicate it. People are just believing something they’ve never actually seen.

        Vogt’s testimony about the evidence of forgery is SO much more convincing and he doesn’t need a book. He works with scanners and part of the planning in the 90’s for pdfs. It can be told by him in specifics with measurements, times, names, dates, etc. and yet you in contrast generalize by just saying ‘nah’ and ‘read my book.’ I spent the time to read your site and if there’s nothing here that can be made convincing either with graphics, details, etc. without constantly referring to reading the 3 month culmination then you are just another person saying ‘no’ but offering no tangential proof that most of us are willing to invest in, our time. I’m not buying a book. I don’t need to.

        I don’t have to read a book to know about Obama’s liberalism and ties to political extremists and racial activists. I’ve read pages of articles both sides to balance my understanding. I’m not a troll on your site sir, I came to let you have a chance to convince me and I posted in the blog to help you understand why you failed. By the way, I ignored this issue when I first heard it and set out to prove those propagating it to me as wrong. It sounded way out there, conspiracy theory-like. The more I read, watched, saw and dug up the worse it got.

        So pigeon-hole me as best you can but just being here proves I at least listened to what the ‘other side’ has to say which I can’t give much credit to those on the ‘other side.’ They don’t understand the issue deep enough to just fluff it off. You claim to if I read your book. I suggest you share the facts here and there if you hope to convince those who like myself are willing to be swayed but not at the cost of a book. I’ve spent enough time and energy already here. Adios.

        • Scott

          About everything that you posted is wrong. However, it is not up to me to correct your mistakes. If that is really the best research you can do you are not interested in the truth and no one should waste a minute educating you.

          Go ahead and live in the dark and believe in your booger men. It is obvious that you get your information from biased sites like World Net Daily. You, like others, want John Woodman to serve you information on a silver platter when you are too lazy to spend a few bucks and two or three evenings reading a book.

          I will give you a break and give you a link to a site that debunks the nonsense you just posted. Read the special report on the Arpaio crapola.

          You can thank me after you read that and John Woodman’s book. Or you can live in the dark.

          PS: Congratulations John Woodman on joining me in as an esteemed PhD.

          • John Woodman says:

            You got the silver platter right, it seems.

            And thanks for the congrats! I am happy indeed. Maybe we can co-author a paper? 😉

        • John Woodman says:


          You say you are a pastor.

          Proverbs 18:13.
          Proverbs 18:17.
          2 Tim. 4:3.

          And that’s about all I have to say about that.

  8. Scott says:

    OK John and your unnamed ‘co-author’ to be, I listened to the leftist oriented and now out of the closet Anderson Cooper who let’s be honest has a subjective reason to be opposed to conservative politics because of his ‘gay lifesytle’ and CNN that bastion of objectivity.

    Anderson says re; part 1 of “what we found in Hawaii” the Honolulu Star Bulletin Newspaper in Births-Deaths announcements Aug. 1961 has the “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama” saying that it (the newspaper) declares a birth announcement. Let’s save the who can make these announcements for later and ask first, “Where is there ANY proof that Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham were married?” There’s no marriage certificate, no divorce certificate, no marriage announcement, NOTHNG. The photo showing Dunham and Obama that most have thrust before their eyes ( is NOT a wedding photo. It’s one of those ‘see them together so they must be married pics’ people use as ‘proof.’ Ahh the power of graphics to string a pic of Obama Sr. then Stanley and then little Barry all like they ever lived together. He didn’t even know him. But no worries he knew Frank. 🙂

    Birthers. Ha. As I think of it all his birth is such a SMALL part of the massive mountain of paper trail buried. Its one thing after another. On and on. Stanley Ann Dunham Sotereo’s passport records were finally obtained but SURPRISE 1961 is missing! Same lame excuse told about the immigration records for NY. Either an unknown govt. agency filed it in can #13 or its a copy error.

    You people are living under a cave ignoring that fact that Obama’s ‘biography’ by Bill Ayers is the source of most of your ‘facts’ about Barry. Mom’s divorce records list an OVER 18 yr old child which was obviously Barry since Maya is listed as 10 yrs old born in 1970 according to birth yr and since it was filed in June 1980 would make his Aug. 1961 birth a tad late. It never ends.

    He’s an enigma wrapped in a tortilla smothered with red radical sauce completely hiding the man’s past. Not college records. no writings, he’s a chameleon like his Mom who by passport records alone had multiple names and divorce dates and places from Lolo. Oh and we can’t see 1961. Strange. The Manchurian has many followers like yourselves who “”A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still””

    Perhaps you should call us all Recorders. Its much more accurate since the birth certificate isn’t even needed to prove he’s not a natural born citizen. Even his bio says that much admitting he has a Kenyan father. At least it might be his father, or Frank Davis. 🙂

    So funny how so much is hidden that you think is normal that is unlike ANY president or world leader for info. But why believe all that when a birth announcement enough for you. And that’s where the trouble begins since there’s no record of Daddy being Daddy. Much more for Frank who spent time with Barry and taught him the finer points of a red Amerika in graphic racial overtones.

    By the way the Bereans studied to see whether those things were so or not. They didn’t just listen to the media and say OK. They said lets see where it says that. You should try it some. FInd out why Hon. Star Announcements don;t impress us though they are like a Holy Grail for de-birthing. Show me the marriage certificate for starters. Dig hard.

    • John Woodman says:


      Nobody’s asking you to trust Mr. Obama. In general, I’d say people do well not to trust politicians very far. That would include Mr. Obama and all the rest of them as well.

    • Scientist says:

      The following do NOT matter when an incumbent President runs for re-election:
      His college grades and papers
      His father
      His mother
      Whether they were married or divorced

      The following DO matter when an incumbent President runs for re-election:
      What he did in the last 4 years
      The program he lays out for the next 4
      His opponent’s record and program

      The things you are concerned about are quite simply complete non-factors in the upcoming election. But if you want to waste your time on them, feel free…

      • Thomas Brown says:

        And until Scott shows he’s sincerely interested in uniform eligibility standards by demanding the same documentation from ROMNEY he’s demanding of BHO, he should just STFU.

      • I would say people who bring up the things Scott seems concerned about are 0% likely to vote for President Obama. I could use the same smear technique that World Net Daily and people like Cashill use and convince you that Jesus Christ himself is the Devil. What happened during those 30 missing years? Where did he go to school? Why did he never get married? What is with hanging around 12 guys night and day? What did he really mean when he said “love your fellow man”? Is he a communist? Was he against capitalism when he violently disrupted commerce when he turned over the money changers tables in the temple?

        See how it works? 😉

    • Scientist says:

      “He’s a chameleon”. Oh, I agree. As Governor of Massachusetts, his proudest accomplishment was enacting heath care reform with near-universal coverage and a mandate to have insurance, a plan originated by right-wing think tanks and supported by Republicans, including Bob Dole. Then when his opponent does the same thing, he suddenly decides it’s a terrible plan that will bring the Universe as we know it to an end.

      Yes, he is a chameleon. Oh, what’s that? You were speaking about Obama, not Romney. Nope, Obama has been pretty consistent. Sorry for the confusion.

Comments are closed.