The Arpaio Posse’s Fatally Flawed “Analysis” of Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate

This Extremely Large Ditch, a Feat of Ancient Engineering, Was Dug by Native Americans in the Southwest, for Drainage and to Provide Shady

This Extremely Large Ditch, a Feat of Ancient Engineering, Was Dug by Native Americans in the Southwest — for Drainage and to Provide Shady Areas Where They Could Live and Store their Corn. (While Some Might Doubt this Claim, It Can Be “Indisputably Proven.”)

This is the 5th and final part of my response to the July 17, 2012 press conference by Sheriff Joe Arpaio (“America’s Toughest Sheriff”) in which he and his “Cold Case Posse” claimed to have “indisputable proof” that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was a “forgery.”

This article was actually written back in August, and was intended to be Part FOUR of my response to Arpaio’s press conference. However, right when the article was almost finished, Arpaio Posse consultant Garrett Papit turned up here to claim that he had absolutely “proven” the PDF was “tampered with.” That was a rabbit-trail that eventually led to this article, which documented the fact that Papit had based much of his “analysis” on technical claims he made that were simply wrong. In addition, it revealed that the PDF had been examined by one of the major inventors of the kind of technology that was used to compress (or “optimize”) the President’s birth certificate image, and that genuine, world-class expert had seen nothing he would attribute to manual intervention or tampering.

After that, I had pretty well decided to let this almost-finished article simply die. I honestly was not going to publish it. But then an email exchange with Mr. Papit impressed upon me that birthers are going to keep demanding a “demonstration” that innocently reproduces every characteristic of Obama’s PDF in detail, and will keep claiming that the lack of such a demonstration is “proof” that the birth certificate is a “forgery.”

So this article is still relevant, and I decided to publish it as Part 5, the final part of a series.

Part 1 revealed some important information on what I knew and could document regarding the background of the Arpaio “Posse’s” investigation.

Part 2 exposed that Arpaio’s posse fabricated their most important evidence and in fact lied to the nation.

Part 3 revealed that not only do the fraudulent codes presented to the public by Arpaio’s posse fail to match the real 1961 federal codes, they don’t match the 1961 Hawaii statistical codes, either.

And finally, Part 4 (as mentioned above) showed that Papit’s foundational technical claims that the PDF was “not possible” to have been created using MRC (or MRC-like) compression were just simply wrong, and revealed that one of the world’s top experts in this type of technology saw nothing that really suggested any kind of forgery or “tampering.”

The rest of this article, with the exception of the very end which I am having to finish, is pretty much as I wrote it in August.

An Absolute Sham of an “Investigation,” From Beginning to End.

Before commenting on Arpaio’s “expert analysis,” let me state that I find it astonishing that I should even have had to write this response. If any genuine, complete, competent, real investigation had been done, my writing this would never have been necessary.

There are many indications that the Arpaio posse’s inquiry was never a professional investigation — from its earliest inception. Whether conceived as such or simply steered that way by birther promoter Corsi, the “investigation” seems to have been nothing more than a witch hunt with a pre-determined conclusion.

Aside from the flat-out fraudulent claims regarding the statistical coding, the only other thing the Posse produced of note was two new “experts” who supported their desired conclusion.

In passing, I’ll note that even though they unquestionably knew of me and others (they even mentioned my name during their first press conference) they obviously didn’t invite anyone onto the team who wasn’t likely to further the witch hunt.

This hand-picking of agreeable authorities would explain their choice of Mr. Garrett Papit. Papit has been a birther now for quite a while. In the past, he’s made an entire series of birther assertions that have been shown to be entirely invalid.

For this reason, Mr. Papit’s eagerness to reach the Posse’s desired conclusions — rather than any track record of accuracy — looks to have been his most important qualification.

Lest you think I’m exaggerating, below is an example of 7 separate birther claims made in the space of just a few hours by Mr. Papit last year. And every single one of those 7 claims had already been debunked as good evidence of Obama’s ineligibility prior to the time he made them.

This One Series of Facebook Postings by Mr. Papit from November 2011 Shows Seven Different Discredited and/or Disproven Birther Claims

I’m not going to go into detail on each of these, because every one of them has been exhaustively covered already. The falsehood of #1 has been shown both here (several different ways!) and by many other writers. The remaining six points were covered at length in my book, published months prior to Papit’s posts.

Now these aren’t the only known invalid birther claims that Mr. Papit has bought into and promoted. But seven in a row, on one single page, ought to be enough to show that Mr. Papit — regardless of whether he may do IT stuff for a Fortune 500 company (as he pointed out to me in an email) is not a credible authority on the facts.

And Mr. Papit was their major new “expert witness.”

Having said that… I noted earlier that I thought (at the time, at least) that Garrett’s work was better than that of some of the other birther “experts.” Some of these descend into the downright awful.

So Mr. Papit comes out with yet another birther report — this one’s 30 pages — which makes technical arguments that Obama’s birth certificate just has to be a hand-created forgery. According to his theory, certain kinds of compression just “can’t produce” the effects seen in Obama’s birth certificate.

But as I noted in an email to Mr. Papit, since we have known examples of all of the important characteristics of the document (the layers, the color-background-plus-multiple-single-color layers, the to-the-pixel-duplicated characters, and so on) in other files that are known to have been scanned and optimized, that’s rather like arguing that black swans can’t possibly exist. [Update: As noted, it’s now been shown that Papit’s major technical claims did not hold water.]

I frankly found their second expert, Tim Selaty, Jr. more credible than Papit. When it comes to basic computer knowledge, Selaty seems quite competent enough. And at this point, I don’t doubt his sincerity; although I must confess I’ve been burned by assuming good motives of birthers before.

In any event, Mr. Selaty didn’t even get his paper presented to the public by Arpaio’s posse. Instead, it was published at his own site (unforunately, as of 2020, it’s no longer available).

Why did Arpaio’s posse use Selaty’s name but not his paper? I suspect two reasons. First, I suspect they didn’t want to reveal Selaty’s age. Selaty is about 22 years old, and has no known prior track record of this kind of analysis at all. There’s nothing wrong with that in itself; but personally, I’ve been working with computers since before Selaty was born. So Selaty is hardly the kind of distinguished expert the Posse would like for you to believe. They’re basing their claims that the birth certificate of the President of the United States is “indisputably a forgery” on the statement of an unknown 22 year old? Really?

Secondly, while Selaty was generally supportive, his paper seemed to contradict some of the Posse’s earlier claims.

Like the claim that the birth certificate is a hand-constructed work of graphic art.

Now I’m not going to do a blow-by-blow against either of these papers, because not only is such a response entirely unnecessary, it’s not even appropriate. Both papers were fatally flawed from the very beginning, because the entire approach and methodology used by both authors was wrong from the very start.

Why Their Methodology Is About as Invalid as One Can Even Imagine

Whatever their basic technical competence, I can hardly describe to you how bad, how flawed, how invalid the methodology used by both Garrett Papit and Tim Selaty, Jr. is. And it’s the same methodology used by other birther critics of the PDF.

Here is their method, in a nutshell:

  • Start with the knowledge that any graphics or computer file that can be created, can be created by hand. (This is a true fact, by the way; at least in theory; although in practice it may be a different story.)
  • Assume that IF Obama’s PDF file was created through optimization and other innocent processes, you can find those exact processes, duplicate them, and get results that are really, really close to the original.
  • Assume that if you fail to find the exact processes that produced Obama’s PDF, then the PDF must be a hand-created “forgery.” Or — at the very least — that it must have been “tampered with.”

Now on the surface, this sounds like a fairly reasonable method. But it isn’t.

Let me show you a couple of gigantic flaws here.

The first one seems obvious, at least to me. It assumes that all of the relevant equipment, software and settings that produced the PDF is readily available to you, both in terms of your knowledge of what is out there, and in practical terms. It also assumes that you can test the trillions or quadrillions of possible combinations exhaustively enough (both of their testers ran “more than 600” tests) to find what you’re looking for.

Entities like the United States government tend to (let’s be frank here) spare no expense when it comes to outfitting themselves. A multi-million-dollar budget for White House IT equipment seems not only plausible, but most likely. I frankly don’t have the millions required to buy and test all available multi-million-dollar systems, and I doubt folks like these birther experts do, either. I also know from experience in working with the federal government that the budget is also likely to include custom software as well as modification of commercial software.

So the notion that we can find exactly what software and hardware systems the White House used unless they tell us is a bit unrealistic. To say the least.

The second gigantic flaw is perhaps a bit more subtle, but just as deadly. If not more so.

It has to do with testing one theory and not the other.

Test Only the Theory You Want to “Disprove.”

We have two basic ideas of how the file could have been produced:

Theory A: All the characteristics of the file were produced through optimization (or “compression”) and other innocent processes, such as a couple of smudges on the scanner glass, maybe somebody adding a clipping mask to clean it up a bit and hide those smudges, and so forth.

Theory B: The file is a hand-created forgery. (Or at least, it was “tampered with.”)

Now we propose to test ONE — and ONLY one — of those two theories. And if we can’t produce the file by that means, then we will accept that the other theory is correct.

Do you see the hole here big enough to drive a train through?

If you’re going to take an approach of demanding that a theory must be able to produce a duplicate, then in order for your approach to be even remotely valid, you have to test BOTH of your theories. Not just one. And you’re going to have to do so objectively.

Not to mention exhaustively, which is a very, very tall order.

Why? Well, you’re presuming that by ONE theory you ought to be able to produce a duplicate. You can’t just assume that they theory you like will produce a duplicate. If you demand that the theory you don’t like must be able to produce a duplicate, then you have to also demand the same thing of the theory you DO like.

Now if you’re only testing the optimization theory, then you stand a really good chance of simply proving your own ignorance. Because given the unlimited range of possible software that might have produced what you see — including obscure high-end programs, and custom programs whose code and algorithms aren’t even publicly available — and given the possibility of some innocent multi-stage process (e.g., it passed innocently through multiple users including multiple operating systems and software packages) there’s a really, really good chance that it is simply beyond your scope to determine the exact process.

The Grand Canyon Was “Indisputably” Dug by Native Americans.

Let’s make this concrete.

The same method used by Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse allows us to easily “prove” that the Grand Canyon was dug by the American Indians.

We go out west. We find this enormous canyon, with a river at the bottom. In many places, the canyon is over a mile deep.

Wow. That’s what we call “anomalous.” That’s really anomalous.

And right away, we can think of two possible theories to explain it.

Theory A: The Grand Canyon was produced by innocent natural processes (erosion by the river?)

Theory B: The Grand Canyon isn’t really natural. It must have been hand-dug by somebody, and simply made to look natural.

So let’s use the same basic method Arpaio’s Posse used on the birth certificate.

First, let’s look around and see if rivers ever produce canyons like this one.

2,500 Miles of the Mississippi River -- Plus Hundreds of Other Examples from All Over the World -- "Prove" that Even Massive Rivers Just Don't Create Mile-Deep Canyons.

2,500 Miles of the Mississippi River — Plus Hundreds of Other Examples from All Over the World — “Prove” that Even Massive Rivers Just Don’t Create Mile-Deep Canyons.

We look at the Mississippi River. Nope. No canyon over a mile deep there. Not remotely.

We look at the Amazon. Nope. No canyon there over a mile deep. Not at all.

We look at a bunch of other rivers: The Ohio River, the Tennessee, the St. Lawrence, the Missouri. We look at a bunch of rivers in Europe and Asia.

Not a single one produces a canyon thousands of feet deep.

True, we do find some rivers with canyons (just as Arpaio’s posse admitted that optimization does produce layers).

But nothing like this.

Okay. So we proclaim on that basis — tentatively, of course — that rivers simply do not create canyons like the Grand Canyon.

So now that we have eliminated that possibility…

It must have been dug by the Indians. There is “simply no other conclusion.”

When our idiotic — I mean invalid — conclusion is challenged, we then go out and find people to “investigate whether it’s possible” that a river could have created the Grand Canyon.

Again, we are using the EXACT SAME basic method here as that used by Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse.

And those hand-selected experts — because we take care to avoid choosing anyone to be a part of the team who’s likely to reach a different conclusion — build models of rivers. We have two experts who each build 600 different models of rivers. They even go so far as to use the same kind of rock found in the Grand Canyon, and to estimate erosion over a long period of time. A particular problem is that rivers just don’t cut very deep.

And so our experts, using their methods, are unable to duplicate a Grand Canyon.

It’s “conclusive,” then! We call a nationwide press conference to announce the news. Voila! By the process of elimination, we have “absolutely,” “indisputably” “PROVEN” that the Grand Canyon was dug by the Indians!

Now, do you see the “mistake” we made? Or perhaps — depending on our motives — the sleight of hand that we pulled?

We failed to equally and realistically test the plausibility of our second theory as well.

We failed to apply the same kind of standards in testing whether the Indians could have dug the Grand Canyon. And we assumed that if we couldn’t reproduce the first theory, then the second theory “must” be true.

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

A conclusion is only as good as the method used to produce it. And This… One… Is… Garbage.

And this is absolutely nothing new. As I said in my book — published more than a year ago:

To those who would claim that we must duplicate the document using the exact software and settings: Let’s try this.

Why don’t we take the same standard of proof that you want, and apply it to YOUR theory?

Those who claim that the optimization and clarity-enhancing artifacts mentioned are proofs of forgery have never duplicated the file, either.

So… you produce a credible forgery, working by hand, showing ALL of the characteristics that we see in the Obama birth certificate PDF, AND THAT YOU CLAIM ARE EVIDENCES OF FORGERY.

Every single one…

And once you’ve finished with that project — once you’ve successfully duplicated the document — THEN YOU MUST CLEARLY EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHY, AS A FORGER, YOU CHOSE TO DO ALL THAT YOU DID IN PRECISELY THAT WAY.

Oh, It’s Been Tried.

I will briefly note that the experiment has been attempted. Ron Polland, a birther from way back, hand-created a “duplicate” of Obama’s long form birth certificate that at first glance looked similar. But it lacked many of the known characteristics of Obama’s PDF — such as the to-the-pixel duplicated letters. As such, it came nowhere near actually reproducing the document.

And by his own account, it took him five months to create it.

Five months, to hand-create a “duplicate” that wasn’t even a duplicate.

And with not the slightest of remotely plausible explanations for why such a “forgery” would have been created in exactly that way, or why those “anomalies” would have been hand-inserted into such a document.

A Far Better Method

There’s a far better method of considering the origin of the PDF:

List the theories, list the known characteristics of the file, and evaluate which theory or theories can explain the observed characteristics and which can’t.

Such a method will almost certainly produce one of two possible results.

Either we will find that there’s more than one theory which can adequately explain what we see, or we will find that one theory passes, and the other one fails.

I have done just that in the table below.

A green “check mark” means that a particular theory is consistent with the observed characteristic. Two check marks mean that the characteristic clearly supports a particular theory, and three check marks mean that the characteristic strongly supports a particular theory.

Likewise, a red “X” means that a particular characteristic does not seem consistent with a theory. Two red X’s mean that the characteristic really isn’t consistent with the theory, and 3 X’s mean that the characteristic can be considered strong evidence against the theory.

PDF Characteristics Versus the Two Possible Explanations

Characteristic of PDF Forgery Theory Optimization & Other Innocent Processes Theory
Existence of Layers
Lower quality than AP document – Would require either two separate forgeries, or some means of transforming — optimizing — the original forgery into the PDF we have.
Existence of Savannah Guthrie photo with seal
Information identical with AP & Guthrie (as long as we ignore the problems above)
Basic nature of layers: color background, 8 other layers of exactly one color each Manually created documents almost never have only one color per layer. – known to exist in scanned, optimized documents
Elements of form scattered over multiple layers – utterly, totally inexplicable by a forgery theory – similar effects known to exist in scanned, optimized documents
Letters touching images and lines are grayscaled (or “antialiased”); letters not touching are “bitmapped.” – completely inexplicable by forgery theory – similar effects known to exist in scanned, optimized documents
Signature split over multiple layers, partly grayscaled, partly bitmapped – a forger would be insane to do this
Safety paper background Would have to be scanned
White halo Very unlikely. A forger or graphic artist would have the safety paper background on its own layer — and it would be pristine, unmarred by bits of other stuff, including the halo. The white halo wouldn’t exist. Seems unusual, but explainable through innocent mechanical processes
White halo separated onto different layer from some letters (bitmapped), but on same layer with some letters from same words (antialiased) – Why? For heaven’s sake, why?
Scattered pixels” in background image Pretty hard to get there this way. – obvious and known artifact of optimization – this file WAS optimized.
File size – Shows clearly that the file was optimized, which casts an enormous cloud on this whole theory. – Proof again that the file was optimized
Difference in scaling Would be extremely unusual – identical to effect known to exist in scanned, optimized documents
Form area slightly blurred Absolutely no reason for this in a forgery Not an obvious artifact of optimization, but likely explainable by some feature or glitch of the scanner or image processing software
Letters are image of letters, not actual text — A forger would’ve had to scan all the letters in — and place them by hand
Precise exact placement of letters
Fonts match fonts from known good certificates perhaps a slight advantage here, not much
Green stamps – ludicrous in a forgery – exactly what we would expect
Apparent lack of chromatic aberration – if there is in fact an actual, complete lack of chromatic aberration – slight advantage here, as there is apparently a very small amount of chromatic aberration detectable, exactly as we would expect
To-the-pixel duplicated letters — including those in the form – absolutely insane from the forgery point of view. There might well have been duplicates in the actual data — but the form would’ve simply been scanned, and that would’ve been it. – STRONG evidence of optimization. This duplicates the same thing seen in files KNOWN to have been merely scanned and optimized, and not hand forged.
Apparent rotation of images — could happen either manually or innocently.
Marks at right, under clipping mask Claimed to be statistical coding marks — that is, numbers, but not identifiable as numbers They frankly look like little bits of gunk on the copier glass that got scanned along with the birth certificate.
Presence of clipping mask Could’ve been manually placed — but wouldn’t show forgery. May have been mechanical, as left/right and top/bottom margins are identical — unexpected if done manually. Even if done manually, no reason to think it would be anything other than covering smudges
Alleged “kerning” does not exist alignment of letters appears authentic
Alleged lack of text curvature actually, it curves. slight curvature exists, same as form lines
Use of tab stops we have no real evidence tab stops were used we have no real evidence tab stops were used
Official seal difficult to duplicate by hand faint, not “overdone;” consistent with authenticity
Certificate number Consistent with authenticity
Description of document Consistent with authenticity
The alleged “TXE” Viewed in AP document, it’s clear it’s an “H.” Consistent with authenticity.
Hospital name Consistent with authenticity
Name of Kenya Consistent with authenticity
Father’s race False allegations made by birthers Consistent with authenticity
Statistical codings False allegations made by birthers Not federal, Hawaiian. Awaiting analysis.
Spacing – A good test, and consistent with authenticity
Inability so far to exactly reproduce document through optimization, etc. As shown in this article, your inability to exactly reproduce something may simply mean you lack the resources or ability to reproduce it
Inability of birthers to exactly reproduce document — with all of its characteristics — through manual processes — and to explain exactly why they did it that way — ALL characteristics are plausible via optimization and other innocent processes. Virtually no characteristic of the document is plausible via the forgery theory.
Attestation from Hawaii

There Are Multiple Characteristics Here that Just Don’t Occur Naturally in Hand-Produced Graphics Files.

The basis of the crank birther claim that Obama’s PDF is “forged” is that it contains “anomalies” that — according to them — do not occur naturally in optimized files.

I say “according to them” because — as demonstrated in the book I wrote on the topic — we have known examples of all of the most important anomalies actually occurring in files that are known to have been scanned and optimized.

What they won’t tell you is that this kind of analysis — applied to their own theory — destroys it.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is probably not possible to find one single graphics file, hand-produced by anybody, created before April of last year, that contains ANY of the following characteristics… let alone ALL of them at once:

  • A full-color, JPEG-pre-optimized background, plus multiple graphic layers on top of that which contain precisely one color each
  • A background form in which letters are scattered, apparently randomly, over multiple layers.
  • Letters touching images and lines are antialiased; letters not touching are “bitmapped.”
  • A signature is split over multiple layers, partly antialiased, and partly solid-color bitmapped
  • An original graphics file, containing all the layers used to produce the graphic and all kinds of graphic data over 9 layers, which is roughly the same file size as an optimized JPEG of a graphic the same size (normal, multi-layer graphics files are almost always MUCH larger than similarly-dimensioned optimized JPEGs)
  • A representation of an official document, in which six different layers of information — intended to be represented as typed information — all appear as varying shades of green (that is, as varying shades of the non-white background color)
  • A large number of to-the-pixel duplicated bitmapped letters — including such letters in the form! (Let me add here that it is very unusual in a graphics file of this type not to use any antialiased letters to start with. Antialiasing is generally a default setting. And it is simply ludicrous to maintain that the form was “hand-faked” by copying letters one by one.)

These are characteristics that simply do not occur “in the wild” of any kind of normal computer graphic art. And the claim that “the forger was incompetent” is absolutely no excuse. Not even a total newbie, or a complete graphics idiot, would create any of these characteristics.

Indeed, the only two things the forgery theory has going for it are the fact that it has layers (which is no advantage at all) and the fact that non-birthers “haven’t duplicated the PDF.”

On the other side of the equation — taking the characteristics of the document one by one — we can see that EVERY known characteristic of the PDF is consistent with authenticity.

As we’ve seen, all of the most important “questionable” characteristics in the PDF are already known to exist in other scanned and optimized files.

In short, the birthers’ call to duplicate the document — if applied equally — is utterly disastrous for the forgery theory.

Of course, they will never apply such a standard equally. Because for a birther:

  • A bald birther assertion equals “proof.”
  • A person accused by a birther is guilty until proven innocent.
  • Non-birthers must disprove every single birther claim or such claims are automatically true (in spite of a track record of over 100 such claims demonstrated to be without merit, at least 85 of which have been shown to be outright false).
  • And the requirement to actually prove a claim applies to non-birthers, but never birthers.

Same Conclusion on the PDF As that Reached a Year Ago.

I said it in the book — over a year ago — and the same conclusion holds true today:

Having thoroughly investigated the matter in every respect that we could come up with, we’ve been able to find no good evidence at all — in regard to the characteristics of the PDF file itself — to support the idea that the file is a hand-built forgery.

Not one single point.

On the contrary, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the PDF document — far from being hand-built by a human — was simply optimized by the computer.

A year later, there are only two small things I would adjust in that statement.

First, I would include the fact that there may be one or two small characteristics that might be the result of innocent processes that don’t fall into the category of optimization. A couple of smudges on the scanning glass. Maybe — though this is far from certain — a small amount of human intervention to add a margin to the document and make it more presentable.

Secondly, I would be more emphatic.

So here is the edited statement, a year later:

The evidence is overwhelming that the PDF document — far from being hand-built by a human — is the result of normal and innocent duplicating and presentation processes. By far, the most significant of these is optimization.

Finally: Arpaio’s So-Called “Investigation” Was a Crime Against the Dignity and Authority of Legitimate Law Enforcement Investigation.

As far as I can see, such an “investigation” — including its fraudulent claims regarding the 1961 statistical manual — can only have happened through outright corruption, gross incompetence, or some combination of the two.

Law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to ferret out wrongdoing. But they also have a responsibility not to trump up charges, not to engage in witch hunts, and to have genuine probable cause before making either arrests or public accusations.

Whether Sheriff Joe Arpaio possesses any technical competence of his own is irrelevant. If he was going to sponsor an investigation, Mr. Arpaio had an obligation to make sure it was accurately and professionally done, and that the results would reflect reality — rather than brushing aside the competent evidence, merely to parrot birther fantasies.

This entry was posted in Birther Scam, Conclusions, New Information, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to The Arpaio Posse’s Fatally Flawed “Analysis” of Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate

  1. John Woodman says:

    Cleaning out the garage and trying (once again) to shut this blog down.

    I wasn’t going to even publish this, but I think it says something that maybe hasn’t been said well enough before. The methodology used by birther “experts” of “You must try to reproduce the PDF, and if you can’t, it’s a ‘forgery'” is simply invalid.

    On the other hand, if you evaluate the consistency of each characteristic with the two major theories, it becomes pretty obvious which one is correct.

    I’m sure birthers will disagree with me on the plausibility of someone hand-creating or tampering with the PDF. That’s their right.

    But I think anyone who objectively examines things, again, will reach the same conclusions detailed above.

    That’s about it.

    • Slartibartfast says:


      I think this was definitely worth publishing—and the Grand Canyon analogy is great. I had a friend (classmate at Duke) that made a model of erosion for his thesis project—the only mathematician I know who could consider trips to the Grand Canyon business… 😉 I’ll bet he could come up with a “river model” which resulted in a mile deep canyon…

  2. john, does the slight amount of human intervention (adding a margain ?) correlate with/to ivan zatkovich’s “enhancement” analysis ?
    i.e.(“has specific content extracted from that base layer and enhanced.” ?)
    where were the copies scanned and by whom.

    have you ever spoken to him about this ?

    • John Woodman says:

      Those would be two different things, but both innocent processes.

      I don’t know that the margin was hand-created. There is a good argument from the exact, precise equality of the top/bottom and left/right margin that this was an automated artifact as well. Nonetheless, even if it was manually created, it falls into the category of “neat presentation” and not in the category of “forgery.” And either way, it’s an innocent process, not a “forgery” one.

      • why would there be copies of different resolution ?

        • Slartibartfast says:


          Your question indicates either great dishonesty or little common sense and critical thinking ability—I’m not sure which. Any rational, reasonable person with a modicum of understanding of the technology (which you seem to claim) can effortlessly come up with perfectly plausible reasons why images made with different methods might have different resolutions. Instead of giving a reason (which you would only ignore) I’ll give you the opportunity to prove that you aren’t an idiot by thinking of one yourself.

          Are you up to that challenge?

          • nothwithstanding your trademark condescending tone, let’s look at you statement from above:
            “can effortlessly come up with perfectly plausible reasons why images made with different methods might have different resolutions”.

            now it’s my understanding that the gaggle of press at the new unveiling were specifically requested not to have any recording devices. yet somehow we have different resolutions show up after the press conference. i just can’t reconcile having different copies of copies and a virtual and “enhanced” pdf. they dispatched a lawyer to hawaii to secure two copies of an original we cannot see. those two copies were shown to a handful of press, most of whom are obama supporters. those images were recorded, by savannah and ap, after specifically being told not to. i think the pdf is both a rabbit and a red herring, to distract, and pass as “in lieu of” the original, which for years, they said was available.
            i guess i’d like to know how the digital resolution got better for ap, and worse for miss guthrie ? remember analog continuous/contiguous information, digital is simply binary , facsimile or exact, irrespective of compression. were any copies made from the pdf ??

            do we know (the name of) who posted the second certificate, because i heard robert gibbs say “i’ve seen the birth certificate lester (kinsolving), i posted it on the internet (the first original birth certificate). also, if we know that the long form was enhanced, by whom and specifically what was
            altered or imported or changed ??

            all of this is as straight forward and crystal clear as solyndra, benghazi and the guns for tequila affairs. this is pattern obscure behavior or deliberate obfuscation, from the self proclaimed most transparent administration.

        • John Woodman says:

          I must admit I was a bit puzzled by the question myself, as it’s something I’m sure has been talked about a lot.

          My immediate thought was, Scott my friend, if you haven’t worked through that particular question yet, at this extremely late stage in the game, it’s probably not much worth getting into.

          This stage of the game is about where we say, “I can’t believe so many people spent so much time on so much conversation and argument about, in real terms, essentially nothing.”

          • ok, that’s the answer i’ve been getting about why there are different resolutions. see, i relate to analog and digital, as it relates to audio and sound. digital information is binary, whereas analog tends to be contiguous. i was just curious why one news agency would have “high resolution”, whereas the “official copies” were supposedly scanned, rendering resolution of diminished quality (lesser clarity/resolution due to genrational loss). i’ve been trying to account for the origin of these distinct differences. same goes for the document being “enhanced” somehow, as described to me by ivan zatkovich when i spoke to him on april 29th 2011.
            usually at this point people start to say it’s all been answered, or attempt, to belittle/berate me personally (as in the example above of alluding to me as an idiot). so if my questions and concerns are all just stupid, then i guess that’s an answer. thanks just the same, i’ll keep looking elsewhere.

            i must say though john, while you never attack me personally, you seem fine in allowing your other guests to do so, i wonder why uncivil discourse replaces real factfinding. while this is not my area of expertise, i can tell when i’m being distracted and getting the run around. if you don’t believe me, simply look at the content of the answers to any of my questions here, or any other forum that i’ve searched for answers.

            as for “late stages of the game”: i don’t don’t know what that means, since i’ve never viewed this situation as being framed by time limits, or constrained within an historical perspective.
            calling someone names in this forum, just seems immature, although it gives everyone the ability to post, even if the post is limited in scope and content.

            i also am interested in the overall way an administration does business, i believe the obama way of operation about the benghazi affair, correlates to the handling of the birth certificate an ancillary provenance. it appears to me as if distraction is an effective mechinism, and i point to a virtual pdf as evidence of that.

            i can also add one more time, that if this were all settled, would we be doing this still after all this time ? those two things don’t square for me, especially amidst all of the other controversy and ostensible scandal perpetuated incidentally, by obama and his chicago machine. all of this will come out eventually i think, even if governor romney wins the white house.

            finally, and with all due respect, i don’t think you will shut this blog down, past action being the indicator. i personally believe that if you had wanted to, you would have by now. these are all things i have to consider in the big picture. the way people act around this subject has always been the thing that intrigues me the most.

            • John Woodman says:


              Just a couple of brief things here.

              1) Have you read the book I wrote on the subject? If you’re really looking for “answers,” you have.

              If you haven’t, then I must conclude you’re not serious enough to spend a few bucks on a book that I personally invested many thousands of dollars worth of effort into writing, and read it.

              2) Any time you take an image of something, the resolution is set by the device and the settings. We have a photograph that was made apparently by a low-resolution cell phone camera, a scan or photo of a photocopy that was made on a second imaging device by some member of the press corps, and a scan that was made on White House equipment by a White House staffer, and then optimized.

              I don’t know why anyone would even expect those images to be of the same resolution. The answer to your question is so trivial I don’t even understand why it was asked. And while I have given no stamp of approval to Slartibartfast’s calling you an idiot, and while I want to be polite and have tried to be polite, after these matters have been talked about in great detail for an entire year and a half already, I understand why Slartibartfast was a bit annoyed by such a question with such an obvious answer.

              3) i can also add one more time, that if this were all settled, would we be doing this still after all this time ?

              I’m not. I have until now, kept by the fact that there has been nothing remotely resembling a shortage of invalid claims made by birthers (we’re up to, by my count, at least 118 of the “more significant” ones). But at this point, I’m done.

              4) finally, and with all due respect, i don’t think you will shut this blog down, past action being the indicator.

              The first time I intended to wrap things up, I was immediately challenged on the “natural born citizen” issues, which I had at that time investigated to a good degree, but never written on. I decided to respond to that challenge, and ended up addressing the “second leg” of birtherism in full detail. Whether that was a good decision or not, I don’t know. It ended by my essentially writing a second book, on natural born citizenship — only not published in book form, but published here at this site.

              As soon as I felt I had finished that, Arpaio’s Posse had their July press conference — literally a day or so after my planned exit date. And I knew that if I didn’t respond to that, some people would say it was because I couldn’t.

              The outright fraud that they brought before the public was so extraordinary, and the new load of BS that they dumped on the public was such, that that took longer to meaningfully address than I had ever envisioned. Nonetheless, this addendum produced some of the most extraordinary posts ever made at this blog.

              Do you really understand how clear it is that these people have simply been lying to you, Scott?

              As far as ending the blog goes: Commentary on all posts is now closed except for the final four. Those final four posts will automatically close to comments 31 days after their post date.

              Every single known significant issue ever brought forth by birthers has been addressed, and ALL of them have been found to be nonsense. Again, in my final article here, I enumerate 118 significant birther claims. NOT ONE of them represents any good evidence of “lack of eligibility.”

              This is as of October 2012, one and a half years after the release of the long form birth certificate, and nearly 4 years into Obama’s Presidency.

              Nearly 4 years, Scott. Nearly 4 years, and at least 118 significant birther claims. And it’s ALL horse manure, and has been SHOWN to be horse manure.

              It may be that some birther makes some new claim tomorrow, or publishes some new “treatise” this afternoon. But the clock has run out. Birthers have not the slightest credibility to anyone who has objectively examined their claims in the light of the real world.

              And if a new “treatise” is produced, I’m sure someone will debunk it. It just won’t be me.

            • Slartibartfast says:


              What you clearly fail to understand is what the appropriate way to honestly raise the issue of an anomaly being evidence of forgery. First off, a fundamental principle of American jurisprudence is that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused (you may have heard of the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”). What does this mean? In the case of some pseudo-anomaly that your birtherism-addled mind excreted, you can’t just say, “I don’t know how this is done, therefore it is proof of forgery”. First, you must determine what would have been expected from innocent processes (and explain why this is the case). Then, you need to explain why the anomaly is evidence of forgery and what the purpose of the technique that caused it was. Finally, you need to show evidence that supports your argument (i.e. non-forged documents which don’t have the anomaly and know forgeries which do have the anomaly).

              Anything less that this should be treated as “crying wolf” by any rational person and ignored (or excoriated for its dishonesty). As John has demonstrated, the whole of birtherism is predicated on nothing but fundamentally dishonest baseless assertions. You really shouldn’t have to wonder why birthers get disrespected—it is the appropriate response to a group of liars.

            • John Woodman says:

              I’ve just been going through what amounts to a lot of the same points by email with Garrett Papit, who says that the idea that there’s really no significant evidence of “forgery” or “tampering” regarding the PDF is

              “a theory that is based only on opinion with nothing to back it up.”

              Corresponding with Papit is a waste of time. He doesn’t seem to get that the burden of proof is on him. Nor does he seem to get there there are two theories here, not just one.

              And only one is in accordance with the actual evidence. And it’s not his.

            • Slartibartfast says:


              Out of curiosity (since any of the birthers reading don’t have the intellectual honesty to appreciate anything you’ve said or done, let alone this), what would you have considered enough evidence to claim that the LFBC was a forgery based on your analysis?

            • John Woodman says:

              That’s a really good question, Slartibartfast.

              Since this column has gotten pretty narrow, I’ll answer it below.

            • Suranis says:

              The answer to your question is so trivial I don’t even understand why it was asked.

              Its very easy to understand why it was asked. It was asked to waste everyone’s time. Anyone who has used a digital camera or resised a photo to email a picture understands why resolutions can change. But Scott here just wants everyone chasing their own tails to prove he is just smarter than everyone else.

              Scott knows damn well that the BC is genuine, he just wants to to get a charge by smearing and insulting. Once you prove this he will just invent yet more bullshit questions and get nastier and nastier. That’s the problem with the “dark side.” You need to do more and more shocking things to get the same charge.

              And the sad thing is, in Hegelian terms the relationship its totally warped. Scott desperately needs people like us to get his sneer hit. We don’t need him in the slightest. Therefore Scott will inevitably lose as he will shrivel up without us, whereas we will remain totally unaffected.

              Its pretty sad but its his choice.

        • John Woodman says:

          It’s also where I ask myself: Was it really worth the time and effort that I put into it?

          I mean, in the final analysis, there was never anything for people to get excited about. Not anything real, in any event.

          So as I look back on it all, an inevitable question is: Did I just waste an enormous amount of my time, effort and energy?

          The thing is, while the issue was not real, I think the questions, for a good many folks, were. And the deception was real. And the twisting of truth in the public arena. That was real.

          So that was what I invested in. Standing up against the deception, and the twisting of the truth.

          So was that worth the time and effort that we all put into it?

          I hope it was.

          • JRC says:

            It was totally worth the time. It may not have been worth it in the financial sense, but you have saved and defended the ideas of the Founding Fathers, and set a foundation for future questioning of documents that use compression online. A great big thanks to you, and your family that let you spend some much time of this topic.

      • are you supplying that:
        a. it could be hand or manually created
        b. there is a chance you cannot tell the difference in every case
        c. if a and b are true isn’t declaration of innocent process (intresting choice of word) presumptious ?
        i’m glad we’re still talking about the margins, at this late date, that was another area where i had cause for question.

  3. gsgs says:

    do you want this examination to be continued/built upon by others
    or would you prefer it to stop now ?
    Your remarks look “final”, but you could leave the discussion
    open and just withdraw from it yourself.

  4. this is from kevin’s website.
    The PDF version is an optimized image, with the color background and some of the text isolated into a low resolution lossy JPG layer with additional bitmaps in various resolutions of the purely back portions (the lowest resolution part of the PDF being the segment containing the registrar’s rubber stamp). The handout doesn’t have all this automatic software optimization and is at a much higher resolution.

    A high-resolution scan of the photocopy is available (courtesy of The Obama File) and it explains a lot of what “seen” in the PDF .

    is it possible that we are confusing resolution with enlargement or definition? where did this high resolution copy come from. was it copied from the whitehouse pressroom, is it from one of the unauthorised photos (savannah) ? could this high resolution copy be from the pdf, if so, does it have legal value ? also, am i taking from this, that a single image can have parts with more resolution than other parts of the same image ??

    • John Woodman says:

      is it possible that we are confusing resolution with enlargement or definition?

      I must confess that I just skimmed over your post, Scott — I really don’t have much patience for this stuff any more — but the above question leaped out.

      The answer to that, technically, is yes. I’m not going to go back and look at it again, but from memory I don’t even recall whether the AP document is technically higher resolution than the PDF. I can tell you this though for certain — it definitely contains more detail than the PDF does. For that reason I think I generally have tried to avoid referring to it as “higher resolution,” but have tried to rather state that it has more detail.

      And that is the only thing that really matters.

      As I recall, there are actually a couple of different versions of the AP document floating around, of different resolutions. The one linked at Dr. Conspiracy’s site is the highest-resolution (and also therefore highest-detail) version.

      So I don’t actually recall at the moment whether than one is technically higher resolution than the PDF. Maybe someone else will comment on that. But again, that technically point simply doesn’t matter to the analysis. It’s clearly higher-detail, which is what does matter.

      Hope that helps.

      • gsgs says:

        the pdf is 2552×3304 (background half of that)
        the obamafile jpg is 4047×4851

        • John Woodman says:

          That would make the highest-resolution AP image definitely higher resolution, then. I think I originally got ahold of an AP version that wasn’t nearly as high in resolution, but that still contained more detail than the PDF. So I may have been thinking of that.

  5. gorefan says:

    You are confused.

    The high resolution copy is from the photocopy of the LFBC that was given to the press at the news conference. The press scanned the photocopy into a pdf or jpeg and then uploaded them to their news websites.

    Image of someone holding the xerox copy.

    • John Woodman says:

      Right. And you can tell it’s the photocopy, and not the original, because of the monochrome nature of the document and the lack of safety paper anywhere but in the shaded area. That’s the only place the photocopier picked up the safety paper pattern.

  6. John Woodman says:

    By the way, the final two posts were made two days ago, on October 17, so November 17 is the date on which the site automatically becomes a static archive.

    I could always shut it down before then. And I might. But I will probably just “let nature take its course.”

    • John Woodman says:

      Just reviewed this. I had always wanted to do a good job, and then exit gracefully. The 17th gives folks plenty of time for any last comments on the final articles. And it happens to be the Saturday a week and a half after the election, so there’s time to chat about that.

      Saturday the 17th it is, then. That’s the date the site goes fully static. And no new articles will be posted, and the 17th is a firm date. Any commentary by me on any new issues will be limited, if I comment on them at all. We have simply passed the sell-by date.

  7. ok john, good luck.
    i’ll still have lots of questions for the next generation.

  8. John Woodman says:

    Slartibartfast asked:

    Out of curiosity (since any of the birthers reading don’t have the intellectual honesty to appreciate anything you’ve said or done, let alone this), what would you have considered enough evidence to claim that the LFBC was a forgery based on your analysis?

    That’s a really intelligent question, and in a year and a half, it’s the first time anyone has asked it. It’s also a good question to answer in the wrap-up commentary.

    First, there is a continuum of what evidence could mean. And along that continuum you have different “stops,” like this:

    • Not particularly suspicious. In other words, within the boundary of things that might reasonably be expected in an “innocent” scenario.
    • Somewhat suspicious.
    • Very suspicious.
    • Extremely suspicious and very unlikely to have arisen through innocent means. Or, to put it another way: Closely approaching or constituting PROOF of “forgery,” “fraud,” or non-innocent “tampering.”

    I could interject in here that over a year and a half, I personally investigated at least 118 different claims of significant evidence or “proof” that the current President was ineligible to his office.

    I found at least 85 of those that were demonstrably false, and documented the evidence that shows they are outright false claims.

    Not one of the remaining claims constituted evidence that I considered to rise even to the level of being significantly suspicious.

    And that includes all of the “forgery” claims I investigated.

    So, back to the main question: What WOULD I have considered to be significantly suspicious?

    The first thing that comes to mind is an “anomaly” I found in the spacing. The word “Male,” the “X” marking the birth as a single birth, and the words “August 4” are misaligned with the words on the rest of the document.

    This was initially suspicious. If I had found that those words aligned perfectly with the “X”es in boxes further down in the form, that would have been a pretty solid indication that someone on had taken an existing certificate, deleted most of the information — all that which would have been specific solely to Mr. Obama — and typed Obama’s information into the blanks.

    If I had found that to be the case, I would have definitely considered that to be good evidence of “tampering” or “forgery” — and I would have called a press conference and announced to the world that I had found credible evidence that the President’s birth certificate was a fake.

    That item was the first to come to mind, because it was the one occasion in which I thought — for a period of about 15 minutes or so — that I might have actually found good evidence of fakery.

    In the end, it turned out that an innocent explanation was the reasonable explanation: the typist skipped over the name of the child — probably because she wasn’t certain how to spell it or the informant was hesitating to set her child’s name in stone — and typed the gender and date before returning to the first line to record the name.

    Secondly, if I had found that the characteristics of the document were consistent with a hand-created graphics file rather than with an optimized scan, that would have been suspicious. But as detailed in the article above, that’s not at all what I found.

    If I had found genuine evidence of kerning, that would certainly have been suspicious.

    If I had found a genuine lack of text curvature, that would have been an indication that the letter in the document had likely been superimposed on an image of the page. That would have been sufficient to arouse genuine suspicion.

    If I had found genuine evidence that the certificate number was truly out of sequence, that would have been sufficient to arouse some genuine suspicion. Not in the “conclusive” category, but certainly suspicious.

    One avenue of investigation that seemed potentially promising was the fonts. That’s why I spent so much time on that specific issue. If I had found clear, strong proof that different typefaces were present in the typed information on the document, that would have aroused very strong suspicion. As it was, I found absolutely nothing that seems out of line with what one might expect from normal typing variations and the imaging-related distortions present in the document.

    Paul Irey, of course, is of a different opinion. On a lot of these matters, in fact. He and Douglas Vogt this week took out a full-page ad in the Washington Times. Virtually all items mentioned in the ad are things I consider to have been previously disproven as being any good evidence at all. I think I noticed one small claim that wasn’t significant enough even to comment on.

    As an aside, I have been in email conversation with Mr. Vogt over the past day or two. He sent an email to Reality Check in which he more or less threatened RC — he mentioned me as well — with prison and execution by hanging as a “traitor,” once Mr. Romney is elected, and there is an investigation, etc., etc.

    I do not find such threats amusing, and I have indicated to Mr. Vogt that if he wishes to threaten my person, the police will very shortly become involved.

    Anyway, I saw nothing in the ad by Irey/ Vogt that I consider to be at all credible.

    I also examined the information on the document. A genuine inconsistency or “impossibility” in the information would have been enough to warrant some genuine suspicion. But it would have had to be something that would not have been plausible as a simple mistake.

    If Mr. Obama, Sr’s race had been listed as “African-American,” that might well have been anomalous enough to warrant some genuine suspicion. First of all, it would’ve been inaccurate, as he was not an African-American. But that could have been an innocent mistake on the part of an American nurse — if the term “African-American” had actually been in usage at the time.

    If it could be established that Obama’s race read “African-American,” and it turned out that the first known usage of the term was, for example, in a scholarly book in 1969, then that would have been suspicious.

    Incidentally, Obama, Sr.’s race as listed on the form — “African” — is precisely what one would expect in a legitimate certificate.

    If the Governor of Hawaii had genuinely, truly stated that no birth certificate existed, that would have aroused some suspicion.

    If the Democratic Party had switched their certification regarding their candidates to specifically avoid stating that Mr. Obama was Constitutionally eligible, that would have aroused some suspicion.

    If the certificate number stamp had been a different size, or a different font, that would have aroused some suspicion. If it had not aligned with known stamps, that could have been suspicious as well.

    Finally, if the form had not matched known forms such as those used in the Nordyke certificates, that would have been suspicious.

    So there are around a dozen examples of things that would have aroused suspicion. The list is not necessarily exhaustive. In any event, in each and every instance, the results found were in line with what one might reasonably expect if the certificate were genuine.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Thanks John!

      I’d never really considered the issue since I came at it from the other side—I knew that (given the repeated official confirmations by the Hawai’i DoH) there was no credible reason for the White House to forge the document. Had there not been a birth certificate on file, the Hawai’i DoH could have produced one instead of standing behind a forgery (in this case it would be fraudulent* but not a forgery as the DoH is authorized to produce such documents). That being the case, there was absolutely no reason for physical, paper copies not to have been flown from Hawai’i to the White House with the president’s lawyer.

      Since I never had any doubts that the LFBC was genuine, I never considered what would prove it false (and it was, of course, readily apparent in that context that the analysis of the birther “experts” was juvenile, naive, and wouldn’t have proved what they claimed even if it was accurate—which you ended up demonstrating pretty thoroughly… 😉 ), but your list seems a reasonable collection of anomalies that, if they had been found, would have raised suspicion.

      It’s too bad that none of the birthers had the integrity to decide before they did their analysis what would be suspicious and what was expected—but that wouldn’t have allowed them to smear the president. In any case, it just goes to show how rare it is to find someone with your honesty.

      * As would be standing behind a forgery—why worry about one sort of fraud and not another?


      Why didn’t you conduct your “investigations” in a manner similar to what John described? As far as I can see, there are three potential reasons:

      1. You don’t understand how a scientific investigation works—if so, there’s nothing wrong with ignorance, but what will your excuse be now?

      2. You understand how to correctly investigate, but you are aware that reasonable methodology wont let you reach your predetermined conclusions—in other words, you are fundamentally dishonest.

      3. You are not interested in any kind of rigorous investigation, just in making a political smear against someone you’re prejudiced against—which would make you a bigot who believes that the ends justify the means.

      Which of these is correct Scott? Is there some option I’m overlooking? What is your motivation for investigating this issue? Because the one thing John’s work makes perfectly clear is that you aren’t at all interested in the truth…

      • none of them are correct. nor does woodman need you to run interference. it’s all speculation and opinion as ascribed above where john says irey is of a different opinion.

        i’m still looking at the big picture (e.g. benghazi).
        i’m not here to woo or convince you, your analysis of me, is trivial and is of no consequence to me.

        i don’t know what trump has tomorrow, but i know he has a long memory, and hates to leave scores unsettled.

        my theory is that the pdf is a red herring and is of no legal consequence, by design.

        let’s continue to see what happens. i think obama is hiding something substantive in the story he’s told.
        if he has used his office to cover anything, it’s a crime, just like watergate. with obama i see contradiction and pattern behavior. the fact that all of you have a common theme of this is a silly non issue controversy, makes us wonder even more. it’s all instinct from my advantage/perch.

        i listened very carefully to the mark gillar debate which featured mr. john woodman.

        incidentally, you have just as much incentive/motive to protect obama, as i do in trying to find the truth about his past. this is high stakes political, multi level chess. you play your side of the board and i’ll play mine.

        • John Woodman says:

          it’s all speculation and opinion as ascribed above where john says irey is of a different opinion.

          Some opinions are reflective of reality, and some are not. Some opinions are actually worth something, and some are not.

          Irey and Vogt both are simply conspiracy kooks, and they have no credibility with anyone who has any discernment.

          Irey is a JFK-conspiracy nut who on this very site presented an autopsy picture of President Kennedy that was angled in such a way that you couldn’t see the blown-off back of Kennedy’s head as “proof” that it supposedly didn’t happen that way. He thinks all American media is being literally controlled and micromanaged by the US government.

          Irey also publicly admitted that he “knew” before even looking at the PDF that it was a forgery, and that he was simply looking for whatever he could find to “prove” it. Gee, how’s that for unbiased? He further admitted that I was right about the major flaws in his “analysis” of the fonts, but he’s now gone back to claiming he’s “proven” it’s a fraud anyway. I guess he didn’t like reality.

          Vogt, on the other hand, isn’t just a “scanner expert.” He also claims to have made “over 60 major scientific discoveries.” He claims to have figured out exactly what causes global warming — and it’s not what the people who actually have scientific training and credentials say. He claims that the sun is going to go nova in October of 2046. So mark your calendar for that big event. Oddly, he also says that will bring us a new Ice Age at the same time.

          So you may want to go ahead and spend your retirement funds on a deep, deep underground shelter with a few decades worth of food, because Doug Vogt says the entire planet is going to go pretty much extinct in October of 2046.

          He further claims to have solved the mysteries of gravity and light, either one of which topics could occupy a real, PhD physicist for an entire career. He claims to have discovered “the exact number of years between polar reversals, which is 12,068 years.” Where did he get that number? He somehow discovered it in the Bible.

          Speaking of which… Vogt also claims he’s “the first in 2595 years to discover where the real Mount Sinai was located including all the altars Moses describes in the Torah.” He’s Indiana Jones as well!

          He claims the New Testament was not written by those authors whom we have historically understood wrote it. No, the entire Christian faith was created by “the Piso family” in order “to gain power, wealth, and influence over the Roman Empire.” So he’s also the world’s greatest Biblical authority. Oh, and he also seems to have “disproven” Christianity. It was all just a scam by the Piso family.

          And yet for such an unprecedented genius — Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Perry Mason, John Calvin, Steve Jobs, Sherlock Holmes and Indiana Jones all rolled into one — he’s made some incredibly stupid mistakes. Many of these would be transparent even to an intelligent 5th grader.

          Vogt seriously claimed, for instance, that the type in Obama’s birth certificate had no curve. He claimed the seal on the PDF was the wrong size. He claimed that the word “THE” is misspelled in the Registrar stamp. He claimed that the fonts in the two stamps were of different sizes.

          Those are FAR from being all of Vogt’s errors, but those four in particular are so simple and so obvious that even a 5th grader of AVERAGE intelligence — with just a very little help — could see and verify them.

          Both Irey and Vogt could succinctly and accurately be summed up here.

          And yet Scott here takes these two clowns every bit as seriously as those who have track records that are accurate, and every bit as seriously as a genuine, world-class expert like Professor Ricardo de Queiroz. Why, it’s all “speculation and opinion.”

          No it isn’t, Scott.

          Life must be kind of fun when you have no discernment of the truth at all. I suppose it allows you to believe just whatever the heck you want.

          • there can be no forgery without comparison to the original right. very convenient who handled the “documents” that day, somehow guthrie and ap got to break the rules and take pictures.
            i wouldn’t use global warming as a contrast example to the obama provenance. “the people who actually have scientific training and credentials say” may have been wrong. i think it’s a hoax and con by al gore and his bleeding heart liberal environmentalist global one world one heart inititive$$$. so did my father, who along with 17000 other “real” scientists signed the petition against the kyoto (oregon petition). gore didn’t mention that consensus. i have to laugh when gore’s goal is to control the weather, never mind the population bomb.
            i think it’s bad science to assume that all of the information about this obama is known at this date. why, i can show you a whole list of things we can see, including most of all the original birth certificate. i’ll keep looking for answers, you keep floating back and forth from “retirement”. we can agree that it’s up to the individual how to spend their retirement dough. i personally will never retire till i’m pushing up daisies.

            • John Woodman says:

              I probably won’t retire either.

              And I am taking no particular position on whether global warming is anthropogenic or otherwise.

              I am merely pointing out that Douglas Vogt is an absolute quack, who claims to know a very great deal about things he knows little about, and whose claims in reality are so idiotic and invalid that I can name 4 of his absolutely wrong quack claims right off the bat that don’t take anything more than a 5th grade education to see and verify.

              Remember Jethro Bodine on the Beverly Hillbillies in the 1960s? 5th grade education?

              Jethro could have understood that the particular Vogt claims I mentioned were wrong.

              And yet you put your trust in this obvious quack, rather than putting your trust in people who have presented accurate information, and rather than putting any trust in a genuine, world-class expert like Dr. Ricardo de Queiroz.

              Why? Because you want to, Scott. No other reason.

              The whole birther drama is good evidence of one thing: The overwhelming power of the desire of some people — like you, Scott — to believe exactly what they want to believe. For some people, that power of sheer fantasy transcends all facts and all reality.

            • i don’t know whom to believe when it comes to the tech stuff. you seem like a good guy, but i don’t have the skills to decern/discern.

              irey claims to have worked for the NSA. the guy from south america ? i don’t know, we must have qualified people in this country, but there is a heavy political affect that hangs in the balance.

              i know now that we have ships that go under the water, after last night’s debate. maybe you are right, but i also know there are people who disagree with your theory. i think obama has cleverly gotten away with not showing the original. hey if he gets away with what would be the crime of the century, it’s the fault of the people in the end.
              but i think he’s crooked, and i know the chicago machine is. people like RC think he’s not part of that chicago machine, but i don’t buy that. if he loses in november, that’s pretty much the end of it for most people, i’ll always have a penchant for the story. plus i got to meet good guys like you, the fogbow crew, not so much… so how ever it ends, it’s been a mostly enjoyable advocation for me. let’s see where it goes from here.

            • John Woodman says:

              I don’t think it takes exceptional tech skills, Scott. You just have to get in there and read what’s been written, and follow it carefully, and ask yourself: “Which makes sense, and which doesn’t?”

              If you follow the things I’ve written, for example, you will find instance after instance in which you don’t have to just trust what I’ve said. Yes, there are a few places where it comes down to a judgment call and becomes a bit more subjective — but not many.

              But you have to be willing to follow the details, and go look at the details, and verify the details for yourself.

              And then it helps to keep a running scoreboard. How many times has John (or anyone else) really, absolutely proven his point? What about the other guy?

              Does John really, truly look at and deal with both sides of the issue? What about the other guy?

              You just have to follow the details. So many of the details are verifiable. I know you’re not a “details” kind of guy, but that’s where the truth is.

    • John is correct about Vogt’s statements that as an Obama supporter and debunker that he thinks I will be found guilty of treason and could get the death penalty after the new regime comes into office. Vogt said he and Irey have contacted the FBI about the “forgery” and about the evil army of Obama supporters who work for James A. Johnson.

      This isn’t a new idea from Vogt. I found a video of an interview he gave to Rev. David Manning the day after the Georgia hearing where he made a similar claim that the Hawaii DoH officials had committed treason. He also said he was “100% certain” that Obama’s birth certificate number had originally been assigned to Virginia Sunahara. He said that they had a lawsuit going in Hawaii to obtain a copy of the original for Sunahara. [of course that case was later dismissed and is now on appeal.]

      The bottom line is that if you don’t buy their crazy nonsense you are probably guilty of treason and will be up for the death penalty soon. Have a nice day!

      • John Woodman says:

        As things went, given the threatening tone of Mr. Vogt’s email, I very nearly called the police on him this weekend.

        • c’mon tell us what he wrote, throw us a bone. i can’t find his email anywhere. i wrote to , but no response as of yet.

          • John Woodman says:

            Doug Vogt sent an email to Reality Check, basically stating that he would soon be facing either a long prison sentence or death by hanging. He also stated that I was in the same position.

            RC forwarded the email on to me. You could say that I was not exactly impressed.

            • the only legal accountability/culpability would be a connection to the terry lakin affair, if there was manipulation (i have my own theories about that). you guys aren’t about treason. we don’t still hang people the last i checked. i think the new york times is treasonous, not you and the radio shack guy.

              so unless vogt is a judge or an attorney general, i wouldn’t be to worried, doesn’t sound like a viable threat, unless he said something more direct.

              you know i’m on all the government watch lists, but this executive branch is in such disarray, i just have to laugh.

            • John Woodman says:

              I still don’t like some idiot talking about hanging innocent people. And I like it even less when I’m one of the people he’s saying should hang.

              Vogt and his ilk are, in my opinion, the same people who have aided and abetted the lynch mob, and informed on their next-door neighbors to the Stasi and the Red Guard, and handed over their neighbors to the SS throughout history. Such people might not pull the trigger or string the rope, but they will happily applaud those who do.

            • i agree, that’s not right. i don’t like that kind of language, if you ever feel threatened you know what to do. this is America and free speech comes first. but it’s all bravado i think, especially coming from an old man, irrespective of his cause or intrinsic certainty.
              but that’s a red flag, why would he talk to you guys like that if he were so sure he was right. unless he’s snapped, that happens too, people become unglued.

              i do so enjoy your company and i hope you keep this forum going, cause it’s an excellent one. (besides you’re the only one who’s had the patience not to ban me).
              keep this going as a testiment to your good work. i don’t have the technical savvy, but i have friends who do, including you.
              maybe keep this as a vehicle to teach what you believe here, that the current president has always been eligible.
              anyway we’ll stay in touch i hope, i had to change my yahoo mail cause of a hack and harvester virus. so i’m at

            • John Woodman says:

              i do so enjoy your company and i hope you keep this forum going, cause it’s an excellent one.

              Thanks. It’ll stay here as an archive for quite a while to come.

              BTW, you might want to avoid posting your email on the web. It’s likely to get harvested by the spambots. 😉

            • John Woodman says:

              I’ll edit it out for you if you need for me to.

      • can’t get it with foia ? maybe he can get a “special waiver” LOL

        and you guys wonder why i’m skeptical.

        • Suranis says:

          You’re not skeptical at all. If you were you would have acknowledged just once that you were wrong whenever people like me debunked any of your numerous lies. You’re just a liar that knows he is lying and sits there grinning as you recycle he same smears over and over that He knows have been proven as lies before, but he doesn’t care.

          I’m sorry that all it has gotten you is numerous bannings, zero respect from anyone and a lot of loneliness, but that’s where lying ultimately leads. Hatred wont bind you to your so called internet friends. If you had channeled your dislike for Obama into actively working for Romney’s election you might have made some lasting friendships and actually had some positive effect. But hey water under the bridge.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          We don’t wonder why you’re skeptical Scott—we know it’s because you hate President Obama so much that you are gullible enough to believe easily debunked lies and sacrifice any integrity you had in a pathetic attempt to smear the lawful President of the United States.

          • he seems like a pretty affable guy, but to me obama is just puppet on the stick, it’s really the chicago machine that has the power.

            sorry if it spoils your premise/narrative of hate, but i really don’t know the guy. same for racist, bigotry and being stupid, which you seem to confuse with disagreement. i guess is easier to namecall then to argue logically. that’s fine, no love lost here with the fogbow gang. i’m here to chat with woodman, the rest of you are inconsequential, but i think you already knew that.

            these latest state department emails, suggest the real transparency. see you in hell costanza…

            • Slartibartfast says:


              There can be honest disagreement regarding whether or not you wish to support President Obama (as John demonstrates), but the time for logical argument regarding his eligibility is long past—and your side lost. That being the case, it is appropriate to call people names that they have well and truly earned by their behavior…

  9. gsgs says:

    John, before you quit, may I ask whether you have ever read in Obama’s books ?

    • John Woodman says:

      No, I haven’t. Why do you ask?

      • gsgs says:

        I read a bit in his books the last days. And I thought
        that the whole idea of birtherism and their theories
        became unlogical, just from the stories that Obama told.
        Someone who read it can hardly be a birther in the
        first place, no matter what the certificate says. (IMO)

        • John Woodman says:

          Interesting. I hadn’t thought of the possibility of there being any potentially useful information in there.

          I don’t generally read books by politicians. Even ones I like. But since I’m not a fan of Mr. Obama, and since I have a very long reading list I can’t manage to get to anyway, his books were never in line for my consumption.

        • i’ve read all the books twice including “fugitive days” why can’t i still be a birther? you thought birtherology became less(?) logical because of the books ?? not me

  10. Dan Crosby says:

    The “debunker” movement, unfortunately, is forced to operate upon the same “evidence of omission” as birthers. Some argument are, therefore, rendered futile and pointless. However, the disadvantage to debunkers is that the absence of evidence is made prolific by the fact that its related to an individual who occupies the most powerful political office in the world, therefore diminishing the merit of that office. There shouldn’t even be a question about the authenticity of the individual!

    If this controversy had been about the natural born citizenship of a janitor in the White House, no one would care (nor would said custodial employee attempt to conceal recs about his past). However, since the requirements of eligibility for this particular job are outlined in this nation’s most important originating legal document, there is a preeminent demand upon us to make sure the legal qualifications are met…for the sake of sovereignty, security and national unity in agreement of the common rule of law. What precedence has this set for future candidates?

    Therefore, there remains two simple questions persistenty and chronically failed to be addressed…which are the most important questions ever asked of a candidate for the office of President in American history. So important, in fact, that our very founders, 250 years ago, thought it necessary to ascribe a mandate addressing them.

    1. Considering the legal, social and apocalyptic ramifications of potentially being exposed as the most prolific fraud in world history, should the fact that a recently obscure man who has claimed to be Constitutionally qualified to be leader of the world’s lone superpower, with access to the most devastating military arsenal in human history, by presenting a digitally fabricated graphic, justify a citizen with even the remotest sense of morality to question its veracity, authenticity and origin?

    The lone piece of evidence presented by Obama to those whose votes he seeks, upon which he has based his legal eligibility to hold the office, is not an authentic, real, original piece of evidence. Call me whatever you want, but I think this is worthy of skepticism and effort to clarify, even at the risk of being wrong. Some who question Obama’s natal history may not fully understand the facts, but at least they care enough to raise the obvious inquiry.

    The very fact that Obama’s evidence of eligibility has been digitally fabricated, regardless of the accuracy of the information found in the image, is worthy of scrutiny simply on the fact that it is a .pdf counterfeit (I use the word counterfeit in the noblist sense, not the criminal sense). Moreover, as citizens, we have moral obligation and duty to the blood ransom paid for our freedom to question such things! Or should we just accept it as the truth without suspicion?

    If a natural born citizen is determined only by the place of one’s birth, why did the founders write discerning language addressing both a “natural born citizen” and “citizen at the adoption of this constitution” within the same clause? Does this not at least raise the interest that a “natural born citizen” is not defined the same as a commonly held “citizen”? Should this not at least promote consideration for the fact that a natural born citizen is one whose citizenship is defined by the laws of nature, not the laws of man? Is it not likely that “natural born” might mean being born under circumstances afforded by natural laws of birth place and parentage, whereas “citizen” might mean being afforded citizenship by laws after one’s birth (i.e. naturalization, by adoption, by marriage, etc.)? Or, would we be so blinded by our ideological lust for one man that we would sacrifice the higher-most standard for our most honorable position of leadership?

    Think on this.

    • John Woodman says:

      Call me whatever you want…

      Okay, Dan. I will.

      I’ll call you a liar and a fraud — based on the multiple documented falsehoods posted in the past by you and your buddy at the Daily Pen.

      Like the time you guys Photoshopped a government document to make it support your article. Remember that one, Dan? How fraudulent is that?

      There’s no way to claim that was an “accident” or a “mistake,” Dan.

      Or how about the time you falsely claimed that Obama’s lawyer had confessed that the PDF was a forgery?

      Or what about the time you claimed that the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual said a penciled code of “9” meant “not specified” on Obama’s 1961 Hawaii birth certificate? When all you had was information from the late 1960s instead… and that’s what you fraudulently showed to the public?

      Wow. Even Jerome Corsi and Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s posse picked that one up and claimed that they had the actual manual, and that it said what you claimed it said. I don’t blame you for their fraud in the matter — but I do blame you for yours.

      All of which has been extremely well documented and is 100% verifiable, of course. I’m sure you’ve seen the actual 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual by now — which of course absolutely contradicts the falsehoods you presented to the public.

      So your reputation certainly precedes you.

      Heck — even first published your BS on Obama’s lawyer, then backtracked and admitted that she had said no such thing.

      Moreover, as citizens, we have moral obligation and duty…

      I think I’ll allow others who aren’t documented frauds to lecture me on moral obligations and duties, Dan. Thanks anyway.

      If a natural born citizen is determined only by the place of one’s birth, why did the founders write discerning language addressing both a “natural born citizen” and “citizen at the adoption of this constitution” within the same clause? Does this not at least raise the interest that a “natural born citizen” is not defined the same as a commonly held “citizen”? Should this not at least promote consideration for the fact that a natural born citizen is one whose citizenship is defined by the laws of nature, not the laws of man?

      This is frankly tiresome, but I will “bite,” and make the obvious comments regarding your nonsense in the above paragraph above.

      If a natural born citizen is determined only by the place of one’s birth, why did the founders write discerning language addressing both a “natural born citizen” and “citizen at the adoption of this constitution” within the same clause? Does this not at least raise the interest that a “natural born citizen” is not defined the same as a commonly held “citizen”?

      Straw man, Dan. Nobody has ever, EVER claimed that “natural born citizen” is the same thing as “citizen.”

      Should this not at least promote consideration for the fact that a natural born citizen is one whose citizenship is defined by the laws of nature, not the laws of man?

      Straw man, Dan. Nobody has said that “natural born citizen” wasn’t derived from the “law of nature.” As has been EXTENSIVELY commented upon, it most certainly was.

      It just wasn’t the foreign, European, Swiss understanding of some law of nature. It was the law of nature as understood in our own, mostly-English heritage.

      I’ll let others comment on anything else they want to.

    • Slartibartfast says:


      The grandfather clause was written for people like Alexander Hamilton and St. George Tucker who fought in the revolution buy were naturalized, not natural born citizens, not for people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (both of whom were unquestionably natural born sons of Virginia)—it was never used.

  11. Slartibartfast says:

    Scott said: “i think it’s bad science to assume that all of the information about this obama is known at this date. why, i can show you a whole list of things we can see, including most of all the original birth certificate.”


    You (and all of the other birthers) already committed the most egregious scientific error possible when you did not determine what findings will confirm your suspicions and what findings will falsify them before you begin your investigation. You only compound this error when you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence available (more information than any of President Obama’s predecessors have been required to give) and demand documents which are not accessible for anyone even though every Constitutional standard has already been satisfied.

    • that should have read: “things we can’t see”.. my mistake. lists of records sealed, websites changed and scrubbed. and on and on. everyone thought snopes and factcheck would end the controversy. i think all of you thought you could end the controversy. in all fairness, i tend to believe that you really believe there is no controversy. to that i would say: here we are still, if it were nothing, you would have walked away years ago. i think you can’t stand that you can’t convince everyone in your otherwise perfect alinsky world.
      it’s a still evolving story and character sketch.
      unfortunately for you, the usual tactics don’t work on everyone, so maybe there’s a clue.

      • John Woodman says:

        Scott, I wouldn’t say that “there is no controversy.” Obviously there is a controversy.

        I would put it like this: There is no valid controversy.

        What controversy there is may have had a significant amount of its roots in some doubts that were — in my view — valid at the time, or to start with.

        But those doubts have long since been cleared up, at least for anyone who has honestly and competently investigated them. So the “doubts” remaining, and the “controversy” remaining, no longer have their roots in any such valid concerns.

        The remaining controversy is solely rooted in the following things:

        • a powerful desire on the part of some — including yourself — to believe that the current President is somehow not eligible.
        • the momentum of a belief accepted by a significant number of people. This is the power of myth and urban legend.
        • the power of propaganda and deception.
        • outright lies and fraud.

        As for why I personally stayed in the issue until now, I will quite openly tell you why.

        1. I made a commitment to finishing the job, in an excellent way. That job is now finished.

        2. Part of the reason I made such a commitment was that it was an opportunity for me to genuinely become an expert on a controversial topic that was of at least some interest to millions of people across the country. And it was also an opportunity for me to genuinely be of service to the truth and to my country, by working to preserve the integrity of our political system.

        Because if lies are allowed to prevail on the conservative side of the aisle, then that encourages people on the other side of the aisle to think they should flat-out lie as well. We did it — why shouldn’t they?

        3. Part of the reason I stayed with it to see it all the way through was simply a commitment to excellence. And part of it was a personal public statement, that I persevere and finish what I start.

        4. The con job being run on the “natural born citizen” claims has potential adverse effects for conservatives. Those particular falsehoods could falsely restrict conservatives from making use of some good candidates, including Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and others.

        5. And finally, part of the reason I have stayed with it until now is that it deeply — pardon my language — p*sses me off to see people quite literally conned. And that p*ssed-off feeling is only a bit stronger when those who are being conned are, for the most part, quite decent conservative people whom I identify with both politically and culturally. I don’t even like to see decent liberals conned, as they are my fellow Americans as well. But the feeling is even stronger when it comes to my fellow conservatives.

        So there you have my reasons.

        • you write really well, i wish i had your skills. i just watched dreams from my real father, not what i was expecting at all.

          i think we’re alot alike in our approach and hold opposite views on all five points, for the same reasoning.

          i guess if you’re shutting down it might be a good time for my site to host a forum, i’ve been contemplating for years. but we’ll cross paths unless you pull a bobby fischer… lol

          i’ ve learned alot, and it’s been mostly enjoyable. i hope obama’s identity/story in the end isn’t managed like the whitehouse, you know, for historical purposes. but history is history.

          • Slartibartfast says:


            I checked out your site—it’s interesting how birthers seem to think that moderation of opposing voices leads to a better debate (I guess it’s the only way people like you are capable of winning an argument…).

            I would also point out that you haven’t really learned anything here—since you clearly haven’t learned the one thing this site makes blatantly obvious: however you feel about President Obama personally, he’s the legitimate President of the United States.

      • Slartibartfast says:


        You cannot provide evidence of a single record of President Obama’s that he has sealed (as opposed to being sealed by law like everyone else’s) or a single penny that has been spent by his campaign to seal records or fight birther lawsuits (as opposed to money spent by his campaign on legal expenses in general—an amount in line with what the McCain campaign spent). Why don’t you have the integrity to admit that you are trying to smear the president with lies and half-truths?

        • you all know the story, the clock is running out here, so we’ll have to find a new place to talk. i’m always at pf. and usmess. cheers.
          thanks john woodman, for your hospitality.

        • The reason I have no respect for scott is that that he said he would come on my show and then lied about why he backed out. It is OK if you know you are overmatched and would embarrass yourself as long you man up and admit that. Instead, scott chose to invent the inane story that he had “punked” me and that “they were all laughing about it”.

          For those of you who do not know the details scott e issued a challenge to debate someone on eligibility and I offered him two hours to debate Frank Arduini on RC Radio. scott never showed and never bothered to call to say he was not going to follow up. By reading scott’s comments here and viewing his web site I think anyone could figure out what really happened.

          BTW, the show went on as planned and Frank and I plus other callers had a great discussion about the idiocy of the two parent citizen definition of a NBC.

          • John Woodman says:

            Yeah, I do have to admit I was a bit disappointed in Scott on that one. 🙁

            • It appears scott lower case has slithered back into his hole. No surprise there.

            • John Woodman says:

              Seems to me there’s not a lot he can really say about that.

              Conversation seems to have died down here a bit the last couple of days in general, giving me a taste of the post-birtherism life.

              I’ve also cleaned up the general email that I receive considerably over the last week or two. From July through September, I averaged receiving 49 emails, every single day.

              Today, I’ve received 8 or 9.

              And 3 of those were from Twitter, which I thought I had already successfully unsubscribed from.

              So at the moment, I’m headed from 50 emails a day, every single day of my life, down to around half a dozen or so. Big difference.

              Yesterday I filed a business license for doing real estate investment activities in addition to my regular tech support (which I will also be refocusing on).

              Today I went and looked at my first property, a tiny little old house they wanted $25,000 for but which — given its condition — would not have merited a purchase price (for an investor) of more than about $10,000.

              This according to my primary mentor, who (unlike me when it comes to real estate) knows what he’s talking about.

              As an aside, if anyone has money they might be interested in lending at some point for a real estate project, let me know. Private lending to a rehabber is generally secured by the property purchased, and can bring some good rates of return. And I will freely confess that I’m a newbie at the moment, but (as noted) I have advice from a man who is good at this.

              I asked him today whether he has ever lost money on a deal. “Not so far,” he replied. (He’s been doing this full-time for 3 years).

              Comments have now closed on the de Queiroz article.

            • Suranis says:

              Heh, if I had any money I’d definitely consider it 🙂

  12. Suranis says:

    Hey John, have you seen this

    We’ve all been having a good laugh at it. There’s no need for you to debunk it, its pretty much been ripped apart, probably too fast for the real birther’s to start championing it, but the odd one has been trying to tell people “not to dismiss it”

    As far as we can judge it was made by a professional prankster. I guess we are lucky Donald Trump didn’t release it…

    • John Woodman says:

      Yeah, I’ve seen it. In fact I was thinking about it this morning while still lying in bed. I was thinking about adding it as debunked birther claim #119. Which I may still do.

    • John Woodman says:

      I just rewatched the video. It’s got “fake” written all over it, for a number of other reasons even above those that I’ve already seen noted.

      The entire premise is wrong from the start. First of all, from everything we know of him, Obama, Sr. wasn’t the kind of guy to be in the delivery room filming his son’s birth. He was the kind of guy to be out in the hallway hitting up on one of the nurses while his son was being born — if he showed up at the hospital at all, which he likely would only have done under some compulsion.

      Secondly, fathers almost certainly weren’t in the delivery room in 1961 — not in Kenya and not anywhere else, for that matter.

      Third, virtually nobody was filming births in 1961. Maybe nobody at all.

      Fourth, I’ve been to 6 births. That’s not what a newborn baby looks like, that’s not how a newborn baby behaves, and that’s not what a real birth looks like.

      Fifth, it doesn’t even look like Obama’s mother.

      Sixth, Ann Dunham? Really? Give me a break. In reality it would’ve been more like OBAMA, Ann.

      Seventh, the camera work is faaaake. Start and end with a shot of a chart with Stanley Ann Obama’s chart? Give me a break.

      Eighth — Since when does a hospital chart, anywhere in the world, EVER have a photo of the patient on it — especially one that we already know and have seen from elsewhere?

      Ninth — It’s already been noted that the nurse is holding the “umbilical cord” onto the baby.There’s no placenta attached to the other end of that umbilical cord!

      And then of course there are the other things that I’ve already seen noted — the calendar with 200x artwork, the Kenyan flag from post 1963, the wrong number of frames per second, on and on it goes.

      Still, it’s good enough to fool birthers. 😆

  13. Suranis says:

    Mario Apuzzo is back blowing his own… er… torch. And he has decided to write his Magnum opus in 8 parts. I wonder where he got that idea?

    We have been debating for over four years whether now presidential candidate Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Just what is a “natural born Citizen?” Why should we require that he be a “natural born Citizen?” Here I will demonstrate that the Founders and Framers, for the preservation and survival of the constitutional republic as conceived under republican principles, demanded that future presidents be “natural born Citizens” and that Obama, even if he was born in Hawaii, is not a “natural born Citizen.” This means that he is not constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

    In Part I, I will discuss the rules of constitutional interpretation and construction. In Part II, I will analyze the text of the Constitution and specifically the “natural born Citizen” clause. In Part III, we will explore the Founders’ and Framers’ purpose for requiring that future presidents be “natural born Citizens.” Part IV will include a discussion of both English and American “common-law,” with a presentation on the critical differences between the two as they relate to how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” under the law of nations which was incorporated into the laws of the United States as national American common law. In Part V, I will discuss the early naturalization acts and how they reveal how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.” I will discuss the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in Part VI and the Fourteenth Amendment in Part VII, showing how the amendment does not define a “natural born Citizen,” but rather a “citizen of the United States.” In Part VIII, I will explain the importance of Minor v. Happersett and show how it confirmed the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of the country when the child was born. In Part IX, I will show how U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark only defined a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and that it did not change the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” In Part X, I will show why two U.S. “citizen” parents are needed to have a “natural born Citizen.” Finally, I will present my conclusion in Part XI which is that the plain text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 shows that the only person that is eligible to be President is a “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” This means that today a “citizen of the United States” is not eligible to be President and only a “natural born Citizen” is. :^o If Obama were born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, being born to a non-U.S. “citizen” father, he would not be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but he would be a “citizen of the United States” as of 1961 under the Fourteenth Amendment. Since Obama is neither a “natural born Citizen” nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” his is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

    Basically he listened to nothing and he learned nothing. At this stage he is to be pitied as much as anything else.

    • Suranis says:

      Of course that does not mean you cant enjoy him flopping around like a beached jellyfish on an amazon thread that’s now over 1300 replies.

      Yeah, its on a review of Terry Lakin’s book.

    • John Woodman says:

      I don’t pity Mario. It’s pretty hard for me to pity someone who’s not only an absolute quack but, as far as I can see, a dedicated deceiver.

    • John Woodman says:

      So today I took the time to read some of Apuzzo’s “Magnum Opus.” I haven’t gotten very far and maybe it’s already time to quit.

      I have long considered Mario to be just a flat-out liar. But I must admit I was taken a bit by surprise with his first major claim of his “magnum opus.” He actually claims that natural born citizens are NOT INCLUDED in “citizens of the United States,” that they are a completely different category and not a subset of “citizens of the United States” at all. And he is very clear about this:

      This Posterity, as “natural born Citizens,” would not have been considered a subset of “citizens of the United States.” Rather, they were seen as being part of a completely different class. It simply is illogical and unnecessary for the status of “natural born Citizen” to be treated as part of the class of “citizens of the United States.” “Natural born Citizens” had to be born of parents who were “citizens of the United States.” Hence, they would not be a subset of the citizenship class of their parents, but rather would create a totally new and different class.

      Of course the claim about having to be born of parents who were citizens is just nonsense. Basically, he assumes the thing he wants to prove.

      But his claim — which is, in essence, that “natural born citizens” are NOT “citizens of the United States” — is just such ludicrous, self-evident nonsense that at this point I am reduced to scratching my head and wondering whether Mario may actually be some form of (quite literally) delusional.

      • gorefan says:

        John – I haven’t read Mario’s latest so I’m guessing but I think Mario’s argument goes something like this:

        The Presidential eligiblity clause says, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”.

        So if “natural born Citizen” is a subset of “Citizen of the United States” then what it is really saying is – ‘No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a natural born Citizen or naturalized Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President’. In Mario’s mind this is redundant and the Framers would have used the term naturalized Citizen instead of “Citizen of the United States”.

        Of course, the problem with this is that the requirements for a member of Congress is that they be a “Citizen of the United States” and therefore a “natural born Citizens” need not apply.

        BTW, in Justice Gray’s opinion he says this about Virginia Minor – “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”

        Under Mario’s interpetation, Justice Gray is saying that the Court in Minor v. Happersett found that Virginia Minor was not a natural born citizen.

      • Northland10 says:

        Basically, he assumes the thing he wants to prove.

        That’s the research methodology of many birthers.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        I think Mario isn’t delusional—he’s just being paid…

        • He and Charles Kerchner probably share the donations that come into Kerchner’s page. The two seem to be joined at the hip and almost always appear together on radio shows. It is just a guess but I doubt Kerchner is making enough in donations to even cover the cost of the ads they have placed in the Washington Times. I am not sure whether the organization’s tax documents would be public records or not.

  14. Suranis says:

    Just thought you might be interested in his in your spare time John. Its a graph of the makeup and ideological bent of Congress through history from the founding. Pretty interesting from a historical perspective.

    • John Woodman says:

      It is a bit interesting, although I don’t know how anyone could really accurately produce such a chart. Maybe it’s possible.

      In any event, I notice two interesting things.

      1) When the slavery-loving Southern states lost their representation in Congress during the Civil War era, who was left?

      2) When leftists totally took over both houses of the US Congress circa 1800 and ruled for the next 20 years, what was the result by 1820?


      • Slartibartfast says:


        Regarding xkcd (the webcomic the chart is from) and charts, I think you’ll find that the odds are that Randall got it right (otherwise he wouldn’t have published the chart). I doubt that getting your hands on the DWnominate data for the history of Congress is all that hard anyway and Mr. Munroe is a first class tech geek… 😉

Comments are closed.