I Challenge Jerome Corsi, Mara Zebest, Karl Denninger, Doug Vogt, Paul Irey and Tom Harrison to Publicly Debate the Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Claims

Recently, Mara Zebest, Karl Denninger and Tom Harrison were on Mark Gillar’s Tea Party Power Hour online radio show discussing again Obama’s long form birth certificate.

Missing, of course, was any point of view other than that the birth certificate is an obvious forgery.

I had been meaning to do this for a while, but the renewed discussion has prompted me to stop merely intending to do it, and do it.

I hereby challenge:

Jerome Corsi,
Mara Zebest,
Karl Denninger,
Doug Vogt,
Paul Irey,
and Tom Harrison —

all of whom have appeared publicly proclaiming Obama’s birth certificate to be an absolute forgery — to publicly debate the evidence.

Yes, I personally am willing to take on not just one, but all six of these experts — singlehandedly.

I’ve talked with Mark Gillar about hosting such a debate, and he has agreed to do so on his show. In fact, he’s already been talking with some of the experts mentioned above about the scheduling for such a debate.

The latest word from Mr. Gillar is at least that Mara Zebest, Karl Denninger and Tom Harrison have indicated they’re willing to debate. I’ve emailed Doug Vogt, but haven’t heard anything back from him yet. That leaves Jerome Corsi and Paul Irey, whom I and/ or Mr. Gillar will be contacting.

Tentative time frame for such a debate is going to be after the holidays, probably a Saturday in mid-January.

I’ll let you know more when I know more.

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

26 Responses to I Challenge Jerome Corsi, Mara Zebest, Karl Denninger, Doug Vogt, Paul Irey and Tom Harrison to Publicly Debate the Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Claims

  1. John Woodman says:

    Update: I’ve sent the following email to Jerome Corsi, titled: “I challenge you to a public debate.”

    Hi Dr. Corsi,

    I would like to challenge you to a public debate on the evidence regarding Barack Obama’s birth certificate. I am willing to take on you, Mara Zebest, Karl Denninger, Doug Vogt, Paul Irey, and Tom Harrison. And if you have any other experts you’d like to throw into the mix, let me know.

    Mark Gillar of the Tea Party Power Hour has said he will host such a debate. Are you game?

    Best wishes,

    John Woodman

  2. i think this is great john, a great step. as a birther, i can tell you i’m proud of you for making this challenge, if it’s a public event i’d like to be there to see it.
    it’s time to get all of the evidence out there and talked about. i assume you will also meet and discuss with sheriff joe’s people/ findings ? i emailed dr. corsi and joseph farah two weeks ago to insist mr. irey meet with you, but this is even better.
    this needs to happen soon. keep pushing for it, the time is right. if the “president” obama is not willing to open the vault in hawaii, this is the next best thing… i’ll stay tuned. i know they will meet your challenge.
    cheers john ! scott erlandson washamericom.

    • John Woodman says:

      Thanks, Scott. The proposed venue is Mark Gillar’s Tea Party Power Hour show, middle of next month. So the whole thing should be public for any and all who are interested in the issue.

      As far as Sheriff Arpaio is concerned, I’m happy to talk with his folks as well.

  3. John Woodman says:


    I emailed Paul Irey, who gave an initial reply, along with a request that I post it here — so I will.


    Why didn’t you mention the venue for this debate? The last time we spoke you were having the fantasy that Hannity on Fox would host the debate.

    Again I must explain to you that any bad news about Obama is blacked out on major media. When I say bad news … I am talking about the crimes he committed or his bi-sexual history … etc. The media controls existed long before Obama came on the scene and until he did … I never would have believed that major media would protect anyone in politics like they have with Obama.

    This is not bias. It is daily media control by wire. Editors must wire in daily for approval … to the fed … any story the public reads or views on major media TV or print. The public will never be allowed to hear any debate that we might have on any major media venue. Ask Lou Dobbs who now gives us only financial news on FOX … was fired from CNN … and got a settlement for that. If he quit … as claimed … CNN would not have had to give him a dime. Who took the shot at his house? Three days later the report was that he resigned. Why can’t FOX use him for political news … since that was his 30 year experience? Of course all this happened to him because he brought up the subject of Obama’s birth certificate on his show. The U.S. government fired him John … and prevents him from being a political reporter now.

    What I’m saying is that the best proof of Obama’s forged birth certificate is the major media blackout of any discussion of the matter. Herman Cain got roasted for an old affair and inappropriate remarks made to women years ago. That served two purposes for the controlled media. It makes us think that no one can run for president if they have a checkered past … because of the “free to print whatever they like media” and it pretends that Obama is clean as a whistle because no such scandals were published when he ran.

    When Phillip Berg filed the first legal challenge to Obama’s eligibility in court … media said not a word. This was just before the Democratic national convention. Phillip Berg was the head of the Democratic party in his Philadelphia district … had held public office in Pa. and was a licensed lawyer to practice before the Supreme Court. Never the less … the media blacked out his challenge and did not mention it until the judge threw it out because of “standing” … not the issues. And the headline was … “Proof Obama born in Hawaii … Judge throws out case.” However FOX news did run the story full bore on TV in Toronto, Canada. We were having an election … not Canada. FOX should have ran the story in the U.S. … but they could not because of the “Wire”.

    Just like you … I could write a book about the government controlled media … and as I said before … my concerns were never a punk commie with a fraudulent birth certificate … but a controlled media. Proving the birth certificate is a forgery is just going to pound another nail into the coffin for the controlled media’s demise.

    If you defend the media’s integrity … just get them to print the attached poster that raises a question that is not allowed to be raised to this day. Media can never admit that the governments own evidence contradicts itself in the assassination of JFK.

    This I would love to debate on any major media … but of course it will never be allowed. Maybe you can explain why John.

    Now show your integrity and post this answer … and the JFK proof … on your comments section … unless you have a good reason as to why my contentions on JFK are not allowed to be shown on major media.

    By the way … congratulations on your findings of the distortion zone on the White House copier. Who knew? Better your findings in a book than to find it out in court … so I never filed that evidence with the FBI and now don’t intend to because of the doubts you raised. I think some of the letters are still different regardless … but I won’t hang my hat on a few.

    When WND releases the next story soon … about evidence that Doug and I collaborated on … I expect and hope for you to challenge it. I don’t mind critics at all. Originally I though major media would throw my evidence out there and forensic people from the 2,000 available in this country … would come forward to deny or verify it … but that never happened did it? It’s all been left to amateurs like you and I … and that’s just not right.

    Nor is it right that a birth certificate that the world has seen … should not be revealed for an examination of the original. What is there to hide? It should look just like the copy … no?

    Maybe it’s only a computer-created file and they have nothing to show us?

    I am now working on the third study.

    Paul Irey



    1) I did mention the debate information, as I referenced the post here for more details.

    2) Hannity’s a long shot, I’ll admit. But I did have the opportunity to talk to a producer for his radio show (not the TV one) and make a pitch. They’re not much interested in birtherism at the moment, but if this should become a big topic again, I wouldn’t completely rule out the possibility of appearing on Hannity’s radio show along with, say, Corsi.

    3) As far as Irey’s Kennedy assassination poster is concerned, I’ll post it below along with my own comments.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      I look forward to Mr. Irey’s material on President Kennedy as well as your comments… I think I’ll steal one of my favorite birther allegations and go with the “Kennedy was a lizard person” camp.

  4. Slartibartfast says:


    I wonder if Mr. Erlandson’s opinion of how great this is will change when you show his birther heroes to be incompetent and completely lacking in credibility or you are complaining about how heavily edited your words were (I see those as the two most likely outcomes by far). It will be interesting to consider his future posts if this event happens.

    • John Woodman says:

      As far as the latter is concerned, per Mark Gillar there will be no editing. The entire debate will be available for all to hear.

  5. Paul Irey says:

    Too bad your site doesn’t allow for attached pies because my reply to your e-mail is not as effective without the JFK pic. Practically anything I say comes with a pic … including all my evidence. Your book would never make sense without the pics. And that is my problem with radio. I’ve only done two of these … one was a Christian broadcast and the other was Reality Check. Both were bad for my kind of issue … because nothing I said on either show could be illustrated as I spoke about them … and I came off as being ineffective. I can’t get anywhere with this kind of venue … as you see. Who would believe my point about JFK without the pic? I have no effective way to debate in your radio venue without pics … as this is all about a birth certificate and things we see on that document. There doesn’t seem to be any TV venue where we can flash something up on a screen … such as an overhead projector prepared to focus on close ups … to support our points as they come up. You would challenge something ,,, and I need a graphic to reply … and you can then use a pointer and point to some part of that graphic that you don’t agree with or present your own and so on. Even though the Christian radio program treated my evidence without challenge … I would not go back … because everything I said just became an unsubstantiated claim. Look at what just happened here on your own site. I make a claim that whats important to me is not Obama … but government control of the media … but I can’t include my graphic evidence to support what I have said. A TV show like we would need does not exist … but it should. It reminds me of the old radio days … before television … when I would sit on the floor by my grandfather listening to a Joe Louis fight. Very frustrating.

    • John Woodman says:


      I’ve uploaded your poster graphic to:


      Unfortunately, though, I’m afraid I can’t agree with that particular point (the claim that we have proof the film was faked) even with the graphic, and I will explain to you why.

      First I should note, though, that the exercise illustrates four good principles:

      1) Use all the evidence you can.

      2) Things are not always as they might initially appear.

      3) Understand the limitations of the evidence you have.

      4) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      Interestingly, we can pretty quickly also see how these principles apply in dealing with the evidence on Obama’s birth certificate.

      Let’s look at your poster. The claim is that “THE FILM WAS FAKED TO SHOW AN EXIT WOUND.” The poster also claims that it is “PROOF MEDIA LIES.”

      On the face of it, it looks compelling. Wow. You have in the film what looks like a great burst of something. Brain matter? Everyone remembers hearing that Kennedy’s brain material was blown all over everything. At least I do. And this is what the film seems to show.

      And yet, on the same page, we see an apparently completely intact Kennedy. The poster asks, “WHERE IS THE DAMAGE?” And anybody looking at the poster is going to say: “Good question!”

      Which brings us to principle #1: Use all the evidence you can get.

      A moment’s search on the internet turns up this page — (WARNING — GRAPHIC!) which shows additional Kennedy autopsy photos.

      When we start looking at the additional photos, we begin to get a radically different picture than the poster, with its one selective photo, shows us.

      This brings us to principle #2: Things are not always as they might initially appear, and to principle #3: Understand the limitations of the evidence you have.

      In fact, it was partly awareness of principle #3 that prompted me to look for additional autopsy photos. I knew Kennedy was supposed to have been shot in the head. But the photo in the poster didn’t show it. So an immediate question was: What about that head wound?

      We could also ask an accompanying question: Why doesn’t the poster show us the head wound?

      It is clear from the additional photos that the entire right side of Kennedy’s head is missing, from just behind his ear. What’s more, it looks hollow. There’s no brain occupying it. The brain is gone. But the photo on the poster, whether deliberately or not, is perfectly angled to avoid showing the fact that the whole huge right side of Kennedy’s head is blown away.

      When you very carefully examine the frames from the film in light of what we now know, you come to the conclusion: Yes, it’s definitely plausible that the film shows exactly what happened.

      Is it possible that the film was edited? Yes, it’s possible. So I won’t 100% rule it out.

      But I also see no compelling evidence here of it. And we have an awful lot of generally credible people who investigated the Kennedy assassination.

      In light of any compelling evidence to the contrary, we usually do well to remember principle #4: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      I could also add something else here. We KNOW now, for a fact, that a large portion of Kennedy’s head is missing, and we can see that an awful lot of brain matter is missing with it. It’s hollow.

      Now that we know that fact, we can reverse things and ask: How did it get that way?

      Did someone fake the film and then remove a large portion of Kennedy’s head to cover for faking the film?

      Possible, but darn likely to be backwards. No, the other photo that shows the actual wound tends to lend direct credence to the thing we were questioning: that the stuff we see blown all over the place in the film actually is what it is purported to be.

  6. bob says:

    “bn” has a question for Irey:

    “Can someone please ask Irey if in the mail he received the press clippings about Donald Young, Larry Bland, Leiutenant Harris, Judge Roll recently? Funny how all of our heroes seem to drop out without much of a fight.”


    (For those unaware, birthers say that President Obama, when not forging birth certificates, ordered the murder of these four people.)

  7. gorefan says:

    Mara Zebest is an interesting case of someone being influenced by their personal bias. Some of her postings from the summer and fall of 2008 show her to despise President Obama. This is a prime example:

    #424mzebest on 07.25.08 at 5:16 pm
    #396 Firebelle Puma

    LOL! It’s what I live for… my goal to make him a mockery of the very crowd he seeks for adulation.

    The “him” she is referring to is then-candidate Obama. Having failed at preventing him from getting the nomination, she turned to the eligibility lawsuits. And she became more then just a casual follower of the them. Especially, Leo Donofrio’s.

    mzebest 11.22.08 at 9:29 pm


    The fact is that the above comment helps to perpetuate the ignorance on these lawsuits that are now gaining speed. It’s obvious that PUMAPAC is ignoring the fact that these lawsuits are also becoming noticed because of the importance behind the issues at stake. I posted a similar comment downstairs but let me say this again: This is NOT ABOUT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE — this is about BEING A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    There’s a huge difference between these two concepts. The importance of the Donofrio case is that even if Obama DOES PROVIDE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE — he is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Donofrio has successfully bypassed the “standing” argument. If you’ve listened to what’s been going on — the lower court tried to give his deposit of money back to him. They tried to get him to accept a refund to file his case. Why? Because they realized it was sound. Another misconception is that the case was denied when going to the SCOTUS on the first round. It wasn’t denied… but rather the court clerk tried to say it was denied in hopes that Donofrio would give up and go away. But Donofrio knew enough about the law to realize that the clerk was pulling some sort of scam and never showed the case to the Judge. It was this mistake that allowed him to refile and choose a Judge of his own choice. Now the case has merit and they’ve ruled to have it reviewed by ALL the Justices. This is big. It’s time to stop dismissing it as silly because of the disappointment from mistakes made by Berg and Martin.


    So is she still trying to make a mockery of President Obama?


  8. Woofer says:

    I am not sure if I understand the logic of Paul Irey’s reply. He seems to be saying “I will not debate you in the media because the media will not cover the debate.”

    One thing is for sure. If there is no debate then it will not be covered. I suspect that is exactly what Mr. Irey wants.

  9. Woofer says:


    Those are good principles you posted:

    “First I should note, though, that the exercise illustrates four good principles:

    1) Use all the evidence you can.

    2) Things are not always as they might initially appear.

    3) Understand the limitations of the evidence you have.

    4) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    Here are Paul Irey’s principles. These also apply to the rest of Corsi’s stable of “experts”:

    1) Use only that evidence that appears to support your predetermined conclusion and ignore the rest.

    2) If confronted with contrary evidence claim that it is a lie or was forged by those who are part of a great conspiracy.

    3) Always ignore simple benign explanations for anomalies in favor of wild conspiracies.

    4) Avoid a fair debate at all costs.

  10. Sterngard Friegen says:

    Taking Irey seriously is the problem. He is another conspiracist who can only survive in an echo chamber of like conspiracists. He will never debate you because he knows his theories are completely fabricated.

    • John Woodman says:

      Some criminal conspiracies exist, and are perpetrated by elected officials.

      The governor of the state Obama came from was just sentenced a day or two ago to 14 years in prison (he’ll actually serve about 12) for criminally conspiring to sell Obama’s vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder.

      He then steadfastly lied about it to the people.

      For that kind of reason, I regarded it as important to take the questions about Obama’s birth certificate seriously and get to the bottom of the matter.

      Also, if you have an apparently credible news organization which claims to have not one, not two, but more than TWENTY different experts, many of them with literally decades of experience in various fields such as scanning technology, computer graphics, and typography — all headed up by a New York Times bestselling author with a Harvard PhD — and ALL of these experts agree that Obama’s birth certificate is clearly a forgery, then a lot of people are going to believe that and accept that at face value.

      Now the only way I know of to genuinely put that to rest is to take the questions seriously, do a real investigation of the evidence available, and — IF the experts are wrong — clearly show that they’re wrong.

      They are, I have, and I’m prepared to debate any and all of Corsi’s experts in public to further demonstrate the point. And for any who still have questions, the details of this disgrace of misinformation that is being perpetrated on the public are all available, and all explained in plain English, in my book.

  11. Woofer says:

    Mr. Irey

    Since you are reading this web site I would ask you provide an answer to my question here:

    Orly Taitz and others are using your analysis in filings in federal court cases and in ballot challenges. You acknowledged that John Woodman is correct and your analysis of the LFBC is critically flawed. Why have you not contacted the courts to correct those errors? Any legitimate document expert would never let an analysis he found to contain major errors to be filed with his name attached. A letter to the court would take minutes to write and would become part of the record.

    The fact that you haven’t taken this simple step leads one to question your legitimacy as an “expert”.

  12. Woofer says:

    … type “your”

  13. Woofer says:

    Thanks much, John. Proofreading my own posts is difficult. I wish more blogs had a preview feature.

    I am serious about my question to Mr. Irey. If he knew that there were problems with his analysis why would he choose to sit on his hands and let World Net Daily and Orly Taitz continue to use it to smear not only the President but those who work for him and officials in the State of Hawaii. I find that behavior despicable.

  14. Ellen says:

    A question for Paul Irey, if he is reading this.

    Paul Irey do you still believe something that you posted several months ago in which you claimed that Obama did not go to Columbia (even though Columbia says that he did)?

    A question for Doug Vogt, if he is reading this.

    Doug Vogt, is this really your autobiography? Is it really your history and written by you?

    This book is out of print but we have downloadable copies available for $10.00

    About the author:

    “Douglas Vogt is a geologist and science philosopher. He has funded and directed three expeditions to the Sinai desert where he was the first person since Baruch (Jeremiah’s grandson) to discover the real Mount Sinai. He discovered all the altars that Moses describes in the Torah. In addition he was the first person since Moses to see the real Abraham’s altar also located at Mount Sinai and not in Jerusalem. He has discovered the code systems used by Moses when writing the surface story of the Torah, which enabled him to decode the Torah and other earlier books of the Hebrew Scriptures.” (http://www.vectorpub.com/Reality_Revealed.html)

    • John Woodman says:

      Just curious — where did Paul Irey make that claim?

      As for the second question, I don’t think Doug Vogt is probably reading this site, but I think the following will probably provide an answer:

      Domain Name: VECTORPUB.COM

      Douglas B. Vogt
      PO Box 40135 [same address as Doug Vogt’s scanner business]
      Bellevue, WA 98015

      Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
      Douglas B. Vogt [followed by an email address at archiveindex.com, which is Vogt’s scanner business — edited to spare Mr. Vogt the possibility of spambots picking it up]
      PO Box 40135
      Bellevue, WA 98015

      Well, that combined with the fact that intelius.com only lists one Douglas B Vogt in Washington (i.e., no Juniors).

      • Ellen says:

        Paul Irey made the claim in a discussion on WND, which would be hard to find. But he did make it.

        • I have no doubt that Paul Irey made that claim. He believes that President Obama has had gay lovers murdered and every other Internet rumor he has ever read about the President.

  15. 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.