Most “Birther” News Outlets Fail to Cover Debate

Continuing an apparent blackout of any real discussion of the claims that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a “forgery,” three major web sites looked to for news by those questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President all failed (refused???) to cover the fact that a debate was even taking place.

WorldNetDaily obviously knew that the debate was taking place — their senior reporter Dr. Jerome Corsi was one of the participants!

Yet as mentioned by me during the course of the debate, they have studiously acted for the past 5 months as if neither I nor my 3-month investigation exist. and The Post & Email (, arguably the two other major outlets for “birther news,” were both informed ahead of time that the debate was going to take place. Both failed to announce it — even after I sent a second message to and emailed the same second message to Post & Email editor Sharon Rondeau.

[Important Update, January 22: has posted an article on the fact that the debate took place, and has allowed me to respond to criticisms in their comments. Thanks,!]

On the other side of the aisle, ran an article announcing that the debate was going to happen. There was a discussion in a thread at the Fogbow ( And RC of Reality Check Radio invited me on for a half-hour wrap-up radio show that turned into an hour. (Thanks, RC!)

I find it ironic that some of these web sites that advertise that they’re all about “the truth” do not appear to be at all eager to cover both sides of an issue.

As a final note, I would like to warmly thank Mark Gillar for hosting the debate. I personally find that in order to arrive at the truth, it is highly appropriate to let both sides of an issue be heard. Mr. Gillar has been willing to do that. Thanks again!

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

51 Responses to Most “Birther” News Outlets Fail to Cover Debate

  1. richCares says:

    Mr. Woodman, you were a class act, too bad the birthers could not step up to your level.

  2. Joey C. says:


    Everyone (all #3 of you) who has bought Mr. Woodman’s book, please see pg. 66. Woodman Photoshopped (or in his case…Paint Shop Pro’d) the Figure to prove his point. That Blue number is not really 47, the “7” should be identical to the other “7” and in the G value and it’s not. There’s also a residue of a possible “1” that remains before the “4” – Screen figures have exact pixel-for-pixel characters.

    Woodman edited out the “1” from the Blue number 47 which should be 147…
    The color is:
    B=147 (no color version of 47 exists in Obama’s PDF… but the 147 is within the range).

    By the way, what REAL expert uses “Paint Shop Pro”! LOL (WOODMAN IS A JOKE)

    • John Woodman says:

      Ah, the inevitable inane backlash.

      First of all, if you’re going to make unfounded and flat-out wrong accusations, please at least try to get the page number right. It appears to be page 67 you’re referring to, not page 66.

      I assume you have before you a printed copy of the book. I have one before me as well. And my copy says 147, not 47.

      I can’t directly control the printing quality of page of every book.

      As to your other question: “What REAL expert uses Paint Shop Pro?” Well… I do, for one. I’ve used it since the mid 1990s, in fact, and it’s been capable of everything I’ve ever really wanted it to do. With a family (now of eight) I’ve never been able to justify the expense of Photoshop when PSP has proved quite capable through the years.

      However, if you’re happy to to buy me a copy of Photoshop (the version I’d pick costs $1,500) I’ll gladly switch, as Photoshop is no doubt the more powerful program.

      By the way, your criticism (“what REAL expert uses ‘Paint Shop Pro’! LOL (WOODMAN IS A JOKE)”) is exactly the same ad-hominem attack that Mara Zebest has tried to use against me a couple of times, since she can’t effectively argue against the approximately 120 substantive points I made in the book. Her argument, in essence, was: “You shouldn’t listen to John Woodman, because he uses a less expensive graphics program than I do.”

      It’s very telling that in regard to a 221-page book, that’s the criticism people seem to gravitate towards: That my graphics program isn’t expensive enough.

      Sorry, just doesn’t wash. The points made in the book (and in today’s debate) stand.

      Come to think of it, Mara Zebest is known to have a printed copy of the book, too.

      And she also uses little things like “LOL,” rather like you do. Hmmm… ??? No… couldn’t be. She’s far more professional than that. Isn’t she?


      @Trial 12:19 PM
      You’re right, that guy John Woodman is so full of crap. OMG… I was laughing hysterically at this guy. First off, he’s claiming to be a serious graphic expert and he uses Paint Shop Pro in this video:
      There is NO serious graphic expert that would be using Paint Shop Pro… they would be using Photoshop. Second, since Paint Shop Pro is a free program
      [note: here she reveals a bit of her ignorance: Paint Shop Pro is not a free program; it just costs a great deal less than Photoshop, which runs, as far as I recall, $999 and up], I’d be willing to bet Mr. Woodman downloaded the Free trial version of Illustrator which allows him to use the program free for 30 days… or maybe he’s using an illegal crack to install the program for the video.
      Additionally, when watching Mr. Woodman navigate in Illustrator, notice how he’s using the scroll buttons. The first thing a professional does — and it becomes second nature — is to know the shortcuts for maneuvering around the program without using scroll bars. OMG… I’m laughing so hard…
      And then in part 2, this guy makes the claim that all backgrounds would be a solid background. Careful Mr. Woodman… your graphic ignorance is showing when you make statements like that.
      The other thing truly amusing about this guy is he reminds me of the student that has to fill a 500 word report with a lot of bull cause he has no substance… so notice how half of any of his videos is filled with theories that have as much substance as one of Obama’s speeches. LMAO
      Mara Z.
      August 3, 2011 3:48 AM

      People frankly look pretty unprofessional when one of the first arguments they pull out of the box (twice, in the case of Ms. Zebest — here and in the November 19 discussion on Mark Gillar’s show) is that the graphics program of the person they’re arguing against didn’t cost as much money as somebody else’s did.

    • John Woodman says:

      Incidentally, I’m glad you made that inane claim, because it reminds me to mention something that I wanted to make clear during the debate:

      As far as I’m aware, every single point that I made in the book ought to be verifiable or able to be duplicated by anyone who’s willing to take the time and effort. The only thing I can think of offhand where you will undoubtedly get some variation is the experiment with chromatic aberration in that chapter. And that’s for the obvious reason that if you sample the colors of many hundreds of pixels from all over the document, the exact pixels you sample will undoubtedly be different from the ones I sampled.

      I believe I sampled enough pixels, though, to produce a decent result. So I think it’s likely if someone wants to duplicate the experiment with a similar (or even better, larger) number of pixels, their result will probably yield the same results: a hint of chromatic aberration, in the direction that we would expect.

  3. i told you to take arduini with you… you should have listened to me.

    you summarily proved that this great fraud case and presidential caper is just beginning, i thought this would happen. you sounded like mitt romney explaining his taxes.

    still, i have to give you credit for showing up, and you did the best you could with what you had to work with.

    when kevin davidson (dr. conspiracy) started censoring my posts last week, for asking questions about what you guys talked about yesterday, i knew it was a huge red flag.

    the fogbow hillbillies had really better sharpen their pencils for the next encounter.. obama is already lawyered up… so…. many questions.

    good luck john…

    • I am proud to be a “fogbow hillbillie”. I find that to be ironic coming from you, bernadine who avoids the shift key on your computer in order to channel e. e. cummings. If Doctor Conspiracy moderated your comments I am sure he had a good reason.

      I enjoyed the debate but wish the host had been more active at enforcing equal time. One fact John pointed out that was never seriously challenged by any of the other members was that neither the White House PDF nor the AP photograph are original documents. That is the elephant in the room that the pixel cult cannot handle. As John points out one cannot be a copy of the other, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that an original paper document exists. The obvious conclusion is that it is the document in the Guthrie photo.

      Unless you contend that the White House forged both the document in the AP photo and created a separate PDF forgery then you must argue that both are derived from a much higher quality forgery prepared either by the White House or by the State of Hawaii. John tried to inquire from the opponents just which one of these theories they proposed and never got an answer. The cannot go there because it brings into play evidence such as the certification by the State of Hawaii, contemporary newspaper birth announcements and remembrances of Barbara Nelson. I went down this road with Paul Irey and in becomes amusing as they can only add other players into their conspiracy (like poor Mrs. Nelson) without even a shed of proof.

      Scott, you are welcome to debate Mr. Arduini and the others or RC Radio.

      • anytime anywhere…
        even your expression “original documents” (plural) is wrong by definition. the “original” may or may not be in the vault.
        it a shell game, and it’s coming into focus for the american people.

        i won’t argue/debate with with people who debate and censor at the same time, which is why i’ll never post again in the bucket of mudd. (hint: that’s a lincoln reference)

        • I doubt that you understand the meaning of “original document” as it pertains to the rules evidence.

          • i doubt you know what the word copy means. analog or digital.

            how about arduini and loren the lawyer (fogbow)
            vs. me and renshaw ?
            if albert can’t, i’ll find another sixteen year old kid to blow the doors of fogbow frankie, it’s a live show right ?
            could be your ticket out of here… lol

            • As I suspected you do not understand the meaning of “original document” in the legal sense.

              The debate challenge I issued for Wednesday is on the definition of “natural born citizen”. What is the subject of your debate challenge? Why would you not want to debate Mr. Woodman, too, if it is on the authenticity of the LFBC?

        • Has Doc actually censored your comments or just put you on moderation? Censored implies deleting all or part of a comment. Moderation is not censoring per se. I believe John moderates comments here. What is the difference then?

          I think both Doc C. and John Woodman are as fair to people on both sides of the issue as any bloggers I know even though I would guess they differ politically. If Doc put you on moderation I would bet he had a good reason.

          • John Woodman says:

            I use a basic moderation system (I think it’s the wordpress default) which mostly just asks me to approve comments from anyone I haven’t approved before. If you’ve been approved before and are using the same posting info, it should go pretty much straight through.

            My policy has been to allow any comment that’s even somewhat reasonably germane to the discussion. I actually received an email from one of the significant birther bloggers, who said I was “full of shit,” “made a fool of myself,” and am a “dick.” I wrote him back and asked for permission to post it as a comment on my blog, and he’s agreed. I just haven’t had time to put it up yet.

            To my recollection, I’ve only censored one or two comments that were really just spam postings, not germane to the conversation, just flat-out advertising a birther web site.

            As far as myself and Dr. Conspiracy, I would say, based on my understanding, that we differ GREATLY politically. Doesn’t stop me from liking the guy and enjoying his blog, though.

          • how big is your audience ??
            no one i know has ever even heard of you.

            john woodman can debate or be the moderator. but he can’t debate and be the moderator.

            doc had put me on moderation, took me off, put me back on, then, and once before, he deleted my posts, which never became comments. that’s when i moved on. why don’t you ask him ??

            what is the definition of the word “original” is, also could be one of the topics. sounds as if we’ve already started the debate.

            and why internet forums hide and relocate and censor comments in an open forum, would be one of my topics.

            open debate on any topic birther related. i’ll bring one expert, frank may bring as many as he likes….

            my only request, it’s live, no editing whatsoever.

            • My show is live. Counting live and archive download plays my show has had 30, 265 listeners total. I leave archives up for at least a year and do not edit them.

              The topic this week is just the definition of natural born citizen. If you wish to take the “de Vattel” side you would be allowed 50% of the debate time. I will mute the participants when it is not their turn.

              An original document for legal purposes would include a state issued birth certificate with a seal. So when Hawaii issued a long form birth certificate with a seal to Barack Obama they created an original document. The 4 images that John Woodman referenced in the debate on 1/21 are all images of the same original document. The COLB photographed by in 2008 was also an original document.

              This is how an “original” document is defined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 1001 Defintions: “(3) Original. An “original” of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An “original” of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “original”.”

  4. richCares says:

    I am sure the birthers on the show don’t believe what they are saying, the State of Hawaii doesn’t forge documents, but they hold their positions to get pay pal pushes from the deluded. When Obama released his long form they had to call it a forgery or lose pay pal pushes. For rational people this issue is over.

    • I disagree. I think the primary reason is that people Zebest and Denninger hate Obama so much they cannot admit to themselves he is the legitimate President. They have deluded themselves into believing no Hawaiian birth certificate could be legitimate. I think they enjoy playing the role of heroes to fellow Obama-haters and readers of biased sources like WND, Birther Reports, NewsMax, and the Post &Email. They now have too much of their personal prestige invested in their claims to debate honestly on the facts. That was pretty obvious yesterday.

      John Woodman dislikes the President’s policies and possibly dislikes the man but he had enough intellectual curiosity and honesty to painstakingly investigate many claims of anomalies using the scientific method.

      • And remember that Zebest was a PUMA as well (i.e. one of the die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters who could not handle then-Sen. Clinton losing the primary to Barack Obama). Her posts – and proto-birther status) are still all over PUMAPAC’s website.

      • a two hour open debate… one month from now.
        does frank know i’ve called him out ??
        he won’t talk to me on the internet, maybe on the radio…
        foggy is certainly welcome…. and loren, nbc… etc
        and how about the oh for goodness sake guy, for laughs…
        let me know,
        i’m at

        • I will contact Frank about this. It would be 90 minutes.

        • you just sent me an email saying we are quaking in our boots… is this your radio show ? are you planning to be the moderator ? 90 minutes is fine…

          • Gillar is a Birther. You didn’t complain about him being a moderator.

            Of course I will be the moderator. It is my show. Unlike Gillar I will enforce equal time by muting each side in order. I will probably alternate giving each side 3 to 5 minutes to cover specific issues in categories of the LFBC authenticity and eligibility requirements. Otherwise, I will take no part in the actual debate. We can work out the details later but that will be how it will work.

            i did not know that mark was a birther.
            you cannot moderate and debate, you have to pick one, no rules. period… still interested ??

  5. Dr Ken says:

    Kind of hard to take mara seriously when she didn’t bring anything to the table but schoolyard taunts. She kept referring to the PDF as being scanned at 150%. What kind of expert makes a claim like that? Does she mean the resolution was higher at 150 dpi?

  6. Greg says:

    John: I was impressed on how you handled yourself during the debate. A class act.

    One thing that KD said that mystified me was that the Whitehouse version of the BC could be printed and produce the same level of resolution as the AP version. However, when I zoom in on the WH version, many of the lower case letters are completely opacified while the corresponding letters in the AP version are not. Also, the AP version appears to have roughly an extra pixel or two at the boundary versus the WH version. For example, zoom both documents and compare the penciled “5” opposite box 6c. If the AP version was produced from the WH version, where did this information come from?

    • John Woodman says:

      Hi Greg,

      And thanks for your complimentary words.

      I haven’t gone back and listened to the debate again myself yet, so I don’t have an exact reference at the moment to what Mr. Denninger said. My point was exactly what you noted:

      * All 3 documents — the AP document, the PDF, and the paper document shown in the two photographs — have the same elements, in exactly the same locations on each document.

      These include everything on the documents: all of the form letters, all of the typed information, the certificate number, the date and registrar stamps, the seal, and the safety paper.

      The safety paper is only visible in the “shadowed” area because the process used to reproduce the image only picked up the safety paper where the shade of the “shadow” combined with it. Elsewhere it was too light to be picked up. But in the areas in which it is visible, the pattern of the safety paper appears in the exact same location as it is in both of the other two documents.

      I do recall that my opponents tried to make the (completely invalid) point that I had supposedly somehow cheated or manipulated the results. But the only adjustment that I did was a very normal kind of adjustment for perspective, scale, etc. When I did this, the elements were CLEARLY in exactly the same locations.

      If two documents have ANY element that is not in the same location, then you CANNOT do the kind of adjustment that I did and have the elements show up as being in the same place — not without cutting out an element and moving it to a different location. That I did NOT do.

      So overlaying the documents reveals that every element except the un-reproduced part of the safety paper in the AP document (which of course is not visible at all) appears in all documents, and all of these elements appear in the exact same location.

      This leads to the inescapable conclusion that these documents are intimately related: Either one of them is an original image from which the other images were produced, or all three are derived from some other (fourth) image.

      The AP document can’t possibly be the original, as it lacks a great deal of information in terms of color and safety paper.

      The PDF document can’t possibly be the original, because of exactly what you noted: Look at any of the letters, any area of detail whatsoever from the PDF. You won’t see as much detail there as is in the AP document. It’s just not possible, in any practical way at all, to take the PDF and produce the AP document. To do so would take probably hundreds of hours of work. So that excludes the PDF as the original.

      Excluding the PDF as the original immediately wipes out all of the theories that it was somehow either the original, forged, Photoshop document, or that the information in shows any signs of being manipulated after arriving into the PDF — since the information we see in the PDF is exactly the same as the information in our other two documents. And we know, again, that the PDF cannot be the original.

      Therefore, if ANY changing of information were done, it would HAVE to have been done before the PDF image was produced.

      It’s possible to argue that all three documents — the PDF, the AP document, and the paper document in the photo — must have been manipulated in such a way as to change the information on each document, and change it identically… but such an argument descends into the entirely ridiculous. There is no indication of it, and it simply makes no sense whatsoever. It’s kind of like arguing that since the sky is blue, somebody must have released blue dye into the atmosphere.

      The only possible theories we are left with, then, are that either the paper document in Savannah Guthrie’s photographs was the source of the AP and PDF images, or that all three documents come from some other source.

      But there is no need whatsoever for a theoretical fourth document. We are told — and in clear terms — by the Hawaii Department of Health that they produced two certified copies of Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, reproduced onto safety paper. Savannah Guthrie’s testimony shows no sign at all that she felt she was handling anything other than a state-certified paper copy of a birth certificate. She states specifically that she felt the raised seal.

      I didn’t just assume Savannah Guthrie’s testimony that these were photographs of a paper document were necessarily true. I carefully examined the images for any sign that they were anything other than photographic images of a real paper document. I found no sign whatsoever that her two images are anything other than what she claims they are; and I found, in fact, signs that corroborate her statement. The color shift that’s visible when you enhance the colors appears to be entirely consistent with what I would expect when looking at a photograph, taken in low light, of a paper document.

      All of these pieces of evidence are entirely consistent with the story told to us by the Hawaii Department of Health, the White House, and Savannah Guthrie, that all 4 images are of a certified birth certificate copy on safety paper, stamped and sealed by the Hawaii Department of Health.

      The PDF cannot possibly be the original, and none of the information is different — either in location or in actual information — in any of the images.

      For all of these reasons, all of the fraud-in-the-PDF theories totally collapse.

      Now… IF we could find ANYTHING in the PDF that is inescapably attributable ONLY to human action, then we might be able to show that some human manipulation of the PDF occurred. To what end, I’m not quite certain — since we know that the INFORMATION in the PDF is entirely consistent with that in the other documents.

      So I did a thorough investigation of all of the anomalies of the PDF as well. In VIRTUALLY EVERY INSTANCE, those anomalies (many of which were claimed by Mara Zebest and others to be evidence of tampering and/ or outright forgery) were not only consistent with software optimization, they were STRONGLY suggestive of software optimization and strongly UNLIKELY to have been done by human agency.

      Zebest and Denninger completely ignored the great majority of anomalies that have been claimed to be evidence of tampering/ forgery, that are clearly the result of optimization — to focus intensely on the one anomaly that I had the least ability to explain — the fact that the background in the PDF appears a bit more blurred in the form area than in the margins.

      These other anomalies — all points on which I destroyed their theories of tampering/ forgery — include:

      * The nature of the layers (information that would be grouped by a human being, including letters of the form, is spread out “insanely” across multiple layers in a way that makes perfect sense in optimization)
      * The way things are divided into antialiased and “bitmapped” pixels
      * The to-the-pixel duplicate letters
      * The difference in scaling between background and other layers
      * The different colors in the date stamps

      All of these are very indicative of optimization rather than human tampering, for the reasons I specified in my book.

      As for the slight blurring, it’s possible, as I noted, that it’s an artifact from the way the image was processed by the scanning software. It’s also possible that it’s an artifact from the original paper document that was reproduced onto safety paper to create the certified copy, and is simply subtle enough that I can’t pick it out of Savannah Guthrie’s low-resolution photo. And yes, Denninger’s theory is plausible, too — except that it flies in the face of all of our other evidence.

      But to Denninger, it’s as if it’s conclusive proof that something is really, really fishy with the PDF. But it just isn’t so. And never mind all the other evidence that Denninger and Zebest DIDN’T want to get into, as it would’ve made them look like fools. Such as Denninger’s clearly baseless claim that the typed text supposedly doesn’t have the same curve as the form and was therefore added later. Every single one of 16 careful measurements contradicts Denninger. (See discussion starting on p. 117 of the book, which any listener to the debate can still get for whatever they’re willing to pay — even if it’s nothing.)

      The lesson here appears to be: If there is ANYTHING, no matter HOW small or apparently trivial, that you don’t have a PERFECT explanation for, DON’T be perfectly HONEST and OPEN and admit that — because opponents will seize upon the tiniest unknown in a sea of otherwise entirely conclusive evidence, try to magnify it into the most important issue in the world, and use it against you!

      The ONLY other phenomenon that (in my opinion) is even arguable is the small group of white pixels at the top of the document. I think this may have been the result of some smudge or bit of paper dust or something on the scanner glass. Harrison thinks it’s an artifact of some human editing.

      So the sum total of claims by Denninger, Zebest and Harrison that there’s been tampering in the PDF would appear to come down to this: the presence of some shadowing or blurring in the form area that I haven’t been able to fully explain, and the presence of a few random-appearing white pixels at the top of the image.

      What they don’t admit is that every other theory, every other claim, collapses completely; and that the blurring and few white pixels isn’t really the BEST they have — it’s really pretty much the ONLY thing they have.

      If they’ve got anything else, I certainly can’t recall them making the case for it in the debate. And as far as I can see offhand, I think I’ve factually shot down everything else they’ve claimed to have.

      Now… does it seem compelling to you that those two artifacts MUST be the result of human tampering and not the result of some function of the scanning software and maybe a few specks of paper dust on the scanner glass? Doesn’t seem compelling to me at all, and it flies in the face of the entire preponderance of every other bit of evidence that we have.

      My final conclusion, on the long section in my book regarding the PDF file, is that the evidence is simply overwhelming that virtually all of the anomalies we see in this PDF file are fully consistent with the simple proposition that someone scanned a paper document, sharpened it, and optimized it for the web.

      And that’s apart from our knowledge that it can’t be the original document, and that there seems to be no way at all to intelligently claim that the information has been altered after arriving into the PDF.

      • Greg says:

        Thanks John for taking the time for that fantastic reply!!!

        In June 2011 I brought to the attention of readers in KD’s web site forum the following. Note that these observations were made while attempting to find evidence of my own that the BC was forged as opposed to looking for evidence to support a preconceived notion that it was not:

        1) The obvious superior resolution of the AP version versus the WH version,
        2) The extra pixels at the margin in the AP version,
        3) The remnants of the safety paper at the left margin (which KD denied existed at the time),
        4) The pixel-perfect replications of letters and text boxes seen in the WH version show significant and natural differences in the AP version,
        5) The “smiley face” issue with “Alvin T. Onaka” appeared to be nothing more than a smudge in the AP version,
        6) The fact that the AP version could not possibly have derived from the WH version and that therefore a superior precursor version of the BC must exist from which they both descended,
        7) The necessary implication that much of the pixel-based artifacts that they cited as evidence of forgery could not exist in the precursor version,
        8) A couple of other points.

        In my post I mentioned the above in the context of a very diplomatically worded request for clarification. For my efforts I received an extraordinarily harsh and vitriolic rebuke from KD as well as disrespectful (and brain-dead) comments from others. KD’s rebuke was so harsh that I was sickened by it and have difficulty reading it.

        In spite of the fact that I pointed the above out to KD in June in very clear and concise terms, both he and MZ still think that the 376 KB WH pdf is it is the source document. In fact, in the debate, he was the most animated when he denied your claim that it could not be the source document.

        My advice to you is that in any future debate with either of them that you positively demand that they provide incontrovertible proof that you can print the WH version and produce the same or superior clarity as the AP version.

        Best regards,


  7. BugZptr says:

    Birther Report / ORYR now has a small article up about the debate.

    <a href="; Link to ORYR

    Mark Gillar appears in the comments.

  8. john i think you have done a tremendous thing here, and listening to the debate reinforces my belief that there is a lot left to be discussed, and why this issue won’t die.
    we need many more debates. i hope frank (and loren) and fogbow accept my challenge to debate on live radio.

    i think you have opened an important door here, thanks again. i wish the gillar show was a little better orchestrated (it was pretty chaotic from a perspective/platform of debate protocol), to me it ended so quickly, i wanted to hear so much more. one way or another this epic topic of provenance and vetting should proceed. i have so many, many questions.

    carry on man… god bless America… !!

  9. Some of the comments at ORYR are hilarious. One guy posted a question about “TXE” at least twice. That is easily explained in your book and has been explained at independently as has the “smiley” in the Onaka stamp. Another commenter asks about the executive order “hiding his records”. It must have been debunked a hundred times that Obama’s EO actually modified a previous EO by President Bush that was even more restrictive.

    Birther Reports should disable anonymous posting. It makes for complete confusion.

  10. RC: I will not do Gillar’s work for him. He will not even answer my messages on BTR. He can arrange whatever he wants.

    rc, i will do you show on feb 21st at 830 pm on your terms. you may moderate and debate at the same time.
    however, ask your fogbow people if they would also meet me at a more neutral arena, perhaps cspan, npr or reuters. i would even do a televised forum such as msnbc., they would set the rules.

    • John Woodman says:


      I’d be extremely surprised if you should get any major players like those you mentioned to host a debate. EXTREMELY surprised. Of course, I was very surprised when Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States.

      If you should succeed against all the odds, though, let me know. It might be kind of difficult to pass up an opportunity to get involved in something in such a context. 🙂

      • awesome. i thought you showed remarkable bravery by engaging in a “birther forum debate” (i had no idea mark gillar was a birther until yesterday).
        the fact that people keep telling me this has been a dead issue, rings in my ears. “move along, there is nothing to see here” is an instant red flag to me. it sounds like a line from a movie.
        with all of the cross referencing i have done i still have a thousand questions.

        you are about as close to representing yourself as neutral, so with your permission, i’d like to have this blog be a sort odd clearing house. if you truly are a conservative, and have zero ties to fogbow as you say (and i don’t mean your few posts at their site, they seem benign enough), then we’ll get along fine, we have so far.

        i have been deleted, censored, have had threads moved and removed from and most recently at doctor conspiracy’s blog. i have been banned from forums for asking questions… i’m just wondering why this is.

        if “the facts are with you”. why is fogbow so tactical and agressive in smearing of people they admit are harmless. doesn’t make sense to me john, so i’d like to air some of those grievences.

        let’s see how the fogbow moderated debate goes. frank and i have had a cold war going since 4/27, so i really look forward to his company on the live radio debate, which i will promote and broadcast simultaneously on my site and other venues, so there is no editing.

        let’s roll the dice, obviously you think it’s not a dead issue, because you wrote a book about it, and showed up last saturday.

        my basic question has always been, “why doesn’t the “president” just end this ?” he could today, and everyone knows it… cheers john

        • John Woodman says:

          > awesome. i thought you showed remarkable bravery
          > by engaging in a “birther forum debate” (i had no idea
          > mark gillar was a birther until yesterday).


          > the fact that people keep telling me this has been a
          > dead issue, rings in my ears. “move along, there is
          > nothing to see here” is an instant red flag to me.

          I certainly agree that when people say, “move along, there is nothing to see here,” that’s a big red flag.

          It’s also a reason why I’ve never said that. I had felt from the beginning that the issue should be thoroughly explored, and questions should be answered. That’s why I spent 3 months of my time investigating… and more since then.

          As I said to you in my other long comment in this thread, as far as my own personal view of things is concerned, I am now at a point where I’m personally convinced that when all is said and done, there’s not going to be any way forward for the birther movement. But it’s taken me 9 months and an incredible amount of research, reading and thinking about it to come to that conclusion.

          I fully sympathize with those who feel the issue has never gotten a real hearing in the media. If it took me literally hundreds of hours to reach the conclusion that I have, whatever coverage the media has given the forgery and natural born citizen issues in particular has not, in my opinion, been anywhere near enough.

          > with all of the cross referencing i have done i still have
          > a thousand questions.

          I’m not too surprised to hear that. Like I say, I’ve spent many hundreds of hours on these issues.

          > you are about as close to representing yourself as
          > neutral, so with your permission, i’d like to have this
          > blog be a sort odd clearing house.

          As far as I’m concerned, any comments germane to the issues are fair here.

          > if you truly are a conservative, and have zero ties to
          > fogbow as you say (and i don’t mean your few posts at
          > their site, they seem benign enough), then we’ll get
          > along fine, we have so far.

          We’ll get along fine. We have so far. 🙂

          > if “the facts are with you”. why is fogbow so tactical
          > and agressive in smearing of people they admit are
          > harmless. doesn’t make sense to me john, so i’d like to
          > air some of those grievences.

          The fogbow seems to be anti-birther as a mission statement. It’s not a mission statement that I personally agree with. I’ve seen some behavior from one or two folks at the fogbow that I can’t agree with, either. That said, some there have been very cordial and I’ve gotten along well with them.

          On the other side of things, I’m now connected to Paul Irey on LinkedIn and exchanging cordial emails back and forth with him. My conversations with Doug Vogt have been quite cordial as well. There are folks on both sides of the issue that I’ve had no problem getting along with. Of course, the debate with Zebest, Denninger and Corsi wasn’t nearly as warm. I guess it depends on the person and the circumstances and the interaction that I end up having with them.

          > let’s roll the dice, obviously you think it’s not a dead
          > issue, because you wrote a book about it, and showed
          > up last saturday.

          It’s certainly not a dead issue in the sense that there are still people who believe in it. For me, as I went into detail in my other comment, I’m at the point where I really can’t see a way forward on the birther side. This is, as I say, new. It’s not new on the forgery side of things, but it is new on the natural born citizen side.

          Incidentally, on that side of things, RC is hosting a “debate” on the natural born citizen issue tonight at what looks like 730 Central Time. I use the word “debate” loosely, as it appears that only one side has agreed to take part. Nonetheless, I think it ought to be informative.

    • John Woodman says:


      I kind of feel like it’s only fair to tell you: I really feel like there’s hardly any debate at this point, and I honestly don’t think it’s possible, if you’re taking the birther side of things against a knowledgeable opponent, for you to win such a debate.

      The reason for this is that the facts simply aren’t with you.

      There’s no compelling evidence of any foreign birth — just hearsay and a few electronic “Kenyan birth certificates” that are extremely dubious at best, and proven totally bogus at worst.

      There’s no compelling evidence of any forgery.

      And on the “natural born citizen” side, the Vattel birthers have already appealed their case to the US Supreme Court… and lost.

      When did that happen, you ask? Have you been sleeping?

      It happened in 1898… 114 years ago.

      I recently re-read the Wong Kim Ark case. I’ve known for a long time that Donofrio’s argument that Minor v. Happersett doesn’t hold water. But what I personally didn’t realize until a couple of weeks ago is that: a) the Vattel argument was basically made by the government in Wong Kim Ark, and b) — and this is very important — the Court in Wong Kim Ark not only rejected that argument, they found — as an “irresistible” “conclusion” that a person in Wong Kim Ark’s situation — born in the US of non-citizen parents domiciled here — was (and I quote the Court) — “natural born.”

      It is indisputable that the Court found Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen. It is also clear — when you read the case carefully — that they found him to be “natural born.”

      Therefore, it’s clear that they found him to be a “natural born” citizen, or — to put the adjective with the noun — a natural born citizen. They also clearly understood the implications of this, as they discussed Presidential eligibility in the ruling.

      Leo Donofrio is therefore correct, in an extremely sideways kind of way (blind pig + turnip) that the Court has established a binding precedent in regard to who is a natural born citizen. But it wasn’t in Minor v. Happersett, it was in Wong Kim Ark. And it wasn’t the Vattel definition, it was that the child born on US soil of non-citizen, non-diplomatic, non-occupying-army parents domiciled in the US is a natural born citizen.

      That doesn’t mean the Vattel birthers have no argument. They have an argument, and they have some valid points. But those points were considered by the US Supreme Court — and rejected, 6 to 2 — 114 years ago.

      Some time back, when I was looking at setting up the recent debate, you made a comment that I was “kind of new to this” and yet I wanted to “sit with the generals” (Corsi, etc.)

      I wasn’t looking to “sit with the generals” — I was actually looking to give them an opportunity for a graceful surrender.

      Was that because I’m so great? No. It was because I’ve mined the issue thoroughly enough to know that the facts simply aren’t with them.

      I actually have a top-secret technique for winning debates; and I will share it with you.

      Step 1. Find out the facts. Consider the arguments as deeply as you can.
      Step 2. If the facts turn out to be against you, switch sides.
      Step 3. Then you can engage in the debate with a powerful ally on your side — the facts. When the facts and reality are with you, you become virtually unbeatable.

      This is the same technique I’ve used in the discussion on this particular issue. I started out as at least a bit of an eligibility skeptic. The facts have led me in a different direction.

      In other words, I came to understand what the facts were, and when they didn’t agree with my inclination, I “switched sides,” and went with the facts.

      Anyway, Scott, I personally think you’re a pretty good guy. And if you honestly think you’ve got the facts with you, then by all means do forge ahead. I just kind of feel duty-bound to tell you that from where I’m sitting, I see no way that you can prevail in such a debate.

      From where I sit, the birther movement is destined to wither away and die. Sorry if this should come across in any way as “negative,” but it’s my honest assessment.

      I honestly believe that we’re about at the point where all of us — you, me, RC, and everyone else who’s gotten involved in the issue — begin to think about what our lives are going to be post-birther-movement.

      • The Birther movement will essentially end with the election in November. I think that will mean that the current President will be given four more years by the American people who tend to do the right thing when making really big decisions. There will still be those diehards who maintain that everything done in the last three years will be invalidated. That is ridiculous of course. The country will move on and the Birther movement will be remembered as a weird curiosity.

      • this whole soliloquy to me is another red flag.
        you are a self proclaimed computer guy, but are you like frank?, an an expert on constitutional law, and eligibility and everthing in the world as well ? this concerns me, plus the rc post below saying “this ends with the election”.
        to me this is a portended resolution, or as i call “fake it till you make it”, something obama is a master at.

        the obot nation has tried “too hard” to sell obama’s purity, in my mind, i grew up in/near chicago, i think his past is corrupt, we’ll see, i for one, have made plenty of time for “this sillyness”, as former senator obama calls it.

        thanks for the warning john, the debate is on….

        • John Woodman says:

          I’m just telling you that, Scott, because you seem like a good guy and I kind of hate to see you ultimately disappointed.

          I’m not by any means an expert on constitutional law, but I know more than enough logic to know that when someone says, “Anybody who makes straight A’s in high school AND gets a perfect ACT score is GUARANTEED a scholarship at university,” that’s not a hard statement that nobody who only has a perfect ACT score will get a scholarship. It is simply a statement that someone who has both will be guaranteed a scholarship.

          That’s just plain, simple logic. And yet that’s the construction that Donofrio argues regarding Minor v. Happersett. He argues, in essence, that the university has proclaimed that no one other than those with both straight A’s and perfect ACT scores will get scholarships.

          It’s just not valid.

          I also know that when the US Supreme Court says that they are “irresistibly” led to a “conclusion,” and that conclusion quite explicitly states that the allegiance of “every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here” is so strong that any “issue” (or child) of that citizen or subject is “natural born,” that, to me, constitutes a ruling that Wong Kim Ark, and any child like him, is “natural born.”

          It’s beyond dispute that the Court ruled Wong Kim Ark a citizen. Not even Donofrio or Apuzzo dispute that. So if they ruled him “natural born” as well — and a careful reading of the plain English of their decision indicates to me that they did — then I see no possible way that they failed to rule Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen. I just can’t come up with a way out of it. Can you?

          This doesn’t take being an expert in Constitutional law. All it takes is a careful reading of the case.

          Now if there is a case to be made for the Vattel birthers, it’s going to have to overcome the fact of what the Court said. I personally just don’t see a way around it. Do you?

          • it’s not my area, i’m interested in a possible cover up (like nixon (abuse of presidential power)).

            i believe the supreme court must at some point define “natural born”. i do know wong never ran for president. justiagate concerns me.

            at some point in future history, the supreme court will address eligibility, i think thomas alluded to that.

            i want to know why all of the confusion, politics, money to fight and game playing for releasing a simple original document, the legendary obama birth certificate. why all of the tactical organising and dispatch and time and effort spent to dispell nothing at all ?

            if obama is reelected and birther issue dissolves, i’ll be the one who is surprised… or when he loses.

            anywho, i feel as if i can talk to you without being personally attacked or maligned, unlike the political forums. i appreciate that, let’s work together on this… perhaps i can get you to join my side… lol…
            maybe not.

        • John Woodman says:

          As far as Obama being corrupt goes, I would frankly be very surprised if he isn’t. He comes from Chicago. Name me any Chicago politician who isn’t corrupt. Look where the guy is who was responsible for appointing a replacement for Obama’s Senate seat.

          That’s an entirely different issue, though, than whether or not the forgery theories hold water, or what the Supreme Court considers a natural born citizen. And the natural born citizen issue has implications for candidates of both parties.

          • i can’t think of any offhand, chicago doesn’t really have a republican party though… lol

            even michelle antoinette’s own father was a democrat precinct captain. she grew up a few miles from me, i’m a few years older.

            she was mayor daley’s assistant, yet she never heard of bill ayers or bernardine dohrn (of snidley whiplash law offices) either… hmmm…

            think she did but just never told barack ? chicago politics is a pretty tight society… i think there may be some fibbing going on.

            we’ll be hearing alot about chicago, wright, ayers, dohrn… and on and on in the upcoming campaign.

          • John

            I am disappointed that you would make such an unsupported blanket accusation like that. You are just supporting the right wing mantra that all politicians from Chicago are corrupt. There is not a shred of evidence that President Obama is in the least bit corrupt. Are there corrupt politicians from Chicago? Yes, as there are from any large city. There are also corrupt politicians in Missouri and from small cities everywhere. If you want examples I will be glad to provide them. I seem to remember that the Republican governor George Ryan from Illinois who preceded Blagojevich is still in prison.

            • John Woodman says:

              RC, I understand your disappointment. I don’t think you should take it as an accusation, though. It’s simply more of an opinion.

              I have no direct information or evidence that Mr. Obama is corrupt. I do have some personal suspicions of possible impropriety in things like the Rezko real estate deal, due, perhaps, to listening to Sean Hannity on a regular basis.

              Citywise, everything I have ever heard about politics in Chicago (and not just from “public” sources but from private ones) is that there is frankly a lot of corruption there — an entrenched culture of corruption. And I’ve never heard anybody make any statement to the contrary. I think your note regarding George Ryan, to me, only tends to confirm the existence of such a culture of corruption, and that it’s not solely limited to Democrats there.

              As for there being corrupt politicians in other places, yes, I’ll grant that there certainly are. But if you were to ask me which city or town in the United States has the highest reputation for corruption, I wouldn’t name any of the smaller towns that I know of. Neither would I name New York City, Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco (which has a reputation for being very liberal), Boston, Phoenix, or even Washington, DC. I’d name Chicago.

  11. then we’re on…! 2/21/12 8:30 Pm…. thank you ladies and gentlemen, i look forward to it all.
    cheers ! scott e.

  12. i’m insulted, as a natural born illinoisan, that someone like obama might come to the land of lincoln, then not be transparent….
    that’s a red flag john… and i am testing his sincerity.

  13. john i just noticed that the obama signature on your background has a “ghost”.
    is that a scan ? bad inking ? a guthrie original photo ?
    lol… stay in touch amigo.

Comments are closed.