The Final Word on Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate


Part 1: A Forensic Look at Arpaio’s “9 Points of Forgery”

Former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio turned claims of "forgery" into national publicity.

Former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio turned claims of “forgery” into national publicity.

ay back in 2012, after becoming the guy who wrote the book on Obama’s birth certificate – literally – and after dutifully following up on the resulting comments and debates for a year afterward, I publicly retired from commenting on the subject.

By that fall, I felt that just about everything had been said that needed to be. Various people had brought forward a huge number of claims that Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, was just not eligible to that office. Other folks, including myself, had given a fair, careful and honest hearing to the mountain of evidence they piled up, and produced carefully thought-through responses that showed clearly that not a single one of these claims held up under honest scrutiny.

Every single allegation they had made to that point – yes, every single one – had been shown to be either baseless, irrelevant, or just plain false.

I made this graphic in 2012 to illustrate my summary of “birther” claims that had collapsed under scrutiny.

I even wrote an article summarizing a whopping 118 claims that had failed to hold up under the light of day.

Today, America seems to be once again stumbling through a fog of public confusion, misinformation, and even outright disinformation. This time, it isn’t to do with Obama’s eligibility. It’s a bunch of other things. People argue over them, and they usually get nowhere.

And yet, the truth is out there. And most of the time, even in the case of complicated and controversial issues, it can be known.

This great problem has sparked the creation of a new project – that I’m currently involved with – dedicated to helping all of us quickly tell the difference between truth and all kinds of doubtful stories, on any and every potential topic. It gives people on both sides of any issue the opportunity to compactly make their entire case. It organizes all of the arguments clearly and briefly, points to the evidence, and then lets people make up their own minds.

Concordis.io is designed to be a fair, unbiased, and non-partisan truth engine.

And one of the issues we’re mapping out for you is that of Obama’s birth certificate.

Because of this, and since I personally never publicly responded to what seem to be the final major claims that Obama’s birth certificate is a “forged document,” I’ve decided to finally step forward and openly examine those.

So welcome, my friend, to The Final Forensic Analysis – and (Hopefully) the Final Word – on Obama’s Birth Certificate.

Officially, the Final Original Claims of “Forgery” Are In.

Back in December of 2016, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona was on his way, reluctantly, out the door. After a series of troublesome issues – not the least of which was being put on trial for criminal contempt of court – Arpaio had lost his reelection bid to opponent Paul Penzone.

On his way out, “Sheriff Joe” held a press conference, in which he once again claimed to have proof positive that Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate is “a 100% forgery, no doubt about it.” This was also, he said, the final wrap-up of an epic 5-year investigation.

The Sheriff and his investigative team claim to have proven
9 Points of Forgery.

Arpaio and his assistants, Mike Zullo and Mark Gillar, more or less tossed out all of their previous claims – or at least stopped pushing most of them – and trotted out nine new ones.

This was probably a good move, since their earlier claims had been well debunked, and since it had become known that Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse” had apparently faked some of their key “evidence” in the last major press conference they had held on the subject. (Oops.) I can imagine that it would have been an embarrassment for them if somebody had brought that up.

[Aside: For a fairly long tour of some of that previous destruction of their earlier “forgery” claims, which involved quite a few people other than just myself, you could visit here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. For an even longer tour, you could spend a few hours or days exploring Kevin Davidson’s excellent site.]

By the way, Arpaio and his team never really responded to the charges and the evidence of their apparent wrongdoing. Maybe there wasn’t much they could say.

But let’s not dwell on the past. Our purpose today is to professionally check and respond to their final claims that they have “proven a forgery.”

Now let me be clear: Even at this very late date, if I find any genuine, non-imaginary evidence that Obama’s birth certificate is in fact a forgery, I will tell you.

Arpaio has said, again and again, that his goal was “to clear the President” or “to be able to clear the document.”

If that was his goal, he’s gone about it in a really, really strange way. But… that’s what he says. So we’ll go with it.

Personally, I didn’t begin so charitably. I actually started out in the spring of 2011 just hoping that I could find some good evidence that Obama’s birth certificate was in fact forged.

Some of that had to do with the fact that I was a life-long Republican. Some of it had to do with the sheer possibility, even if it was a long shot, of changing history.

And of course it didn’t hurt that if I were to succeed, some pretty large form of national fame and fortune would almost certainly follow. At the very least, there might be some help with the college expenses for our six kids.

And so, I searched high and low, and day and night.

I never found any such evidence, in 2011, or in 2012, or at any time up until this week, when I began this fresh evaluation of Arpaio’s latest claims.

Now for the sake of full disclosure, I will make it clear that my general outlook on our politics has shifted since I first examined Obama’s birth certificate.

In the nine years since I started this journey, I’ve stopped basing my politics on ideology — and I had been fairly well steeped in the conservative side of this — to basing it instead on a simple question that I think every one us ought to be asking:

“What’s in the best interest of the American People, and the future of our nation?”

Politically, I think that’s our key question. So I would describe myself differently today. I don’t tend to use ideological terms.

But in any event, my commitment to the truth is still exactly the same. Regardless of whether the truth were to help or hurt any particular side of the political aisle, I’m going to tell you the truth.

Because whatever your political philosophy may be, we are going to be far, far better off if we base our political discourse on truth and reality, than if we don’t.

So for this round… well, I’m not going to give the results away up front. I will tell you, though, that this journey has been an entertaining one, and I think you will enjoy the rest of the story.

Why? Because this is a pretty darn interesting little investigation. It has at least two jaw-dropping moments. And besides those, I’ve also uncovered a really cool new little nugget of discovery that possibly no one has ever really thought about until now.

A new Mystery, that Arpaio and his team brought up. They didn’t solve it, but they did bring it up.

And with that Mystery… I will reveal the solution that they and their hired examiners failed to figure out.

So Let’s Begin — With Their “9 Points of Forgery.”

That’s the heart of the matter.

Now they created an official video on this. It’s about 8-1/2 minutes long, but let me quickly summarize, as it’s pretty straightforward.

In short, they claim that nine different items from the birth certificate of a girl named Johanna Ah’Nee were copied to help create Barack Obama’s birth certificate. They call Ah’Nee’s birth certificate a “source document” for Obama’s.


“Points of Forgery” 1 through 5: They claim that five specific items were copied over at one time. These include the words “Honolulu,” “Oahu,” and “Oahu,” and two check boxes with an “X” in them.

You can click any of these images for a bigger view.


“Points of Forgery” 6 and 7: Each certificate has two date stamps at the bottom — one at the left, and one at the right. Obama’s both say “AUG -8 1961,” and Ah’Nee’s both say “AUG 24 1961.” Arpaio and his team claim that the stamps at the left are the exact same angle, and the stamps at the right are the exact same angle. They say this is impossible, so it means that Obama’s two date stamps must be copies of Ah’Nee’s.


“Points of Forgery” 8 and 9: They claim that ONE of the check boxes from Ah’Nee’s certificate was copied over to Obama’s TWICE, to create two of the check boxes on Obama’s birth certificate.


And that’s their flagship argument. They make some other claims as well — which we can consider — but this is the heart of it. This is what the major video is on. And this is the major announcement that their entire “five-year investigation” comes down to.

Jaw-Dropping Moment Number One

If you watch the video carefully, and follow it in very close detail, you will likely notice something that first makes you go, “Huh?” and then makes you go “Wait..?” and then makes your jaw drop, and then — in my case at least, explodes into laughter.

At the beginning of the video, they claim that Obama’s “7e” check box (with its particular filled-in “X”) was created by copying Ah’Nee’s corresponding “7e” check box over. This is their “point of forgery” #4.

Obama’s 7e Checkbox

But at the end of the video, they claim that Obama’s “7e” check box was created by copying over Ah’Nee’s “6d” check box. This is “point of forgery” #9.

Now Gillar, the narrator in their video, actually calls the “6d” box “6e,” but there is no “6e” box, and he’s shown clearly enough in the video that he’s talking about box “6d.”

So — just to make this crystal clear — first they claim Obama’s “7e” box is a direct copy of Ah’Nee’s “7e” box — and then later in the same video, they claim it’s a direct copy of Ah’Nee’s “6d” box.

But it can’t possibly be both. They’ve flatly contradicted themselves in their flagship video!

The Keystone Kops were a bunch of bumbling policemen who were popular in the days of silent-picture comedy.

This is all the more astonishing and funny when you consider that they had five long years to get their theory and their final press conference right.

FIVE YEARS!! And they still couldn’t produce a conclusion, or a video, in which they didn’t directly contradict themselves!!

This is clown-car stuff. This is Keystone Kops.

It’s all the more astonishing and funny when you realize that they even show you their own error!

Right in their big press conference.

NINE Points? Ah, no.

After the second run-through of the “9 Points of Forgery” video, they show a brief wrap-up video. Mark Gillar says, “Now let’s take a look at all the items that were taken from the Ah’Nee document and used to digitally create Obama’s long-form birth certificate” (this is at 54:48 in the press conference video).

Count ’em. There are eight of them, not nine.

How did they even manage to produce the video without realizing that they claimed the same item on Obama’s certificate was a copy of two different items on Ah’Nee’s? This is truly a crack investigative team.

And it’s even more jaw-dropping when you realize that in their last major press conference before this one, they also contradicted themselves in their big-reveal video — showing two different tables for race codes (used for federal government birth statistics), all in the same video, that they claimed were both from the very same 1961 document!

In reality, one came from a 1968 document, and the other was from a separate 1969 document.

They were mostly the same, but still had multiple clear differences, because the way they counted statistics on race had changed between 1968 and 1969.

So twice in a row, Arpaio and his team put on major press conferences in which they couldn’t even keep their own story straight until the reporters had left the room!

It actually goes deeper than this. This isn’t even the worst of it — as we shall see later.

But it’s certainly remarkable.

Okay, But Could They Be Right Anyway That One or More of These Items Were Copied?

As funny as all this is, they might still be right in their claim that at least something was copied from Ah’Nee’s birth certificate to make Obama’s.

So let’s take a peek at these one by one.

The Guiding Principle: If Something’s a Copy, You Can Usually Tell It By Looking.

I remember many years ago, when digital cameras and video first started to enter the consumer market.

The great thing about digital graphics is that it’s so precise. You have an exact value for every single pixel.

No more of the old chemical-based film to fade and change color. No, with digital technology, we know that every particular tiny little pixel is supposed to have exactly this much of red, this much of blue, and this much of green.

And those three colors of light will combine to reproduce any precise color we want pretty much exactly. There may be a tiny bit of natural variation between different screens, but that’s it.

Also, if we want to copy one thing to another — we get the exact same results. And you can tell it by looking at it.

Now that isn’t to say you can’t copy something over and then run it through some process that changes it. You can warp it, you can do wild and crazy effects on it, or you can paint over it entirely if you like.

But if you want evidence that Image B was copied from Image A, then image-wise, they’ve got to have something in common.

Otherwise, there’s no evidence there at all. And it quickly becomes ridiculous to say that this item was copied from that one.

By the way, it doesn’t matter if two different items are at the same angle, either.

Even if it’s the exact same angle.

Because if they’re two entirely different images, then it’s clear that they are not copies.

Now this isn’t limited just to pictures of different types of things. If we had a photo of a white cow, and one of a brown cow, you could still tell quite easily if someone had done something like start out with the photo of the white cow and then color it brown.

It’s pretty clear when two things are or are not the same exact thing, even though they may be the same type of thing.

With that in mind, let’s look at these supposedly copied items one by one.

(And by the way, if you have a computer graphics program and know how to use it, it’s possible to replicate everything I’ve done at home if you so choose.)

“Points of Forgery” 1 Through 5

Note that Arpaio and his team did not show you this kind of comparison of images. 

Why not? Perhaps because doing so utterly destroys their claims that these nine items from Ah’Nee’s certificate were the source of the corresponding items on Obama’s?

Here I’m going to use the best image available of Ah’Nee’s certificate, and compare that with the Obama PDF.

But I’m going to go beyond that. Because the highest resolution view of Obama’s birth certificate we have is not the PDF file posted on the White House web site.

It’s the Associated Press image of Obama’s birth certificate.

Now this image isn’t remotely new. It was released by the White House the same day as the PDF. I talked about it extensively in my book, which was published before Arpaio’s five-year “investigation” even began

We can also use the PDF image as well. But as you will see, the AP image is generally of higher quality.

Click for bigger image.

Our first item is the word “Honolulu.” Ah’Nee’s image is on top. Second is Obama’s PDF, and third is the Obama AP image.

Feel free to click on that for a better view.

Look at the “H.” It’s got more ink, especially at the top right and at the bottom. It doesn’t have a gap in it like the Obama one does.

Look at the next letter — the first “o.” You can see that it, too, has more ink, especially at the upper right. We could continue with a couple other letters, but that should be enough.

It shouldn’t be too difficult to see how a computer algorithm can use a rough approximation to reproduce an image close to what we see at bottom, and get something like what we see in the middle. Bear in mind that the PDF image in the middle wasn’t created from the bottom image — instead, they are both different images, with different quality settings, of the same original paper birth certificate.

But you don’t digitally copy a “H” with no gap, and get an “H” with a gap, and you don’t digitally copy a thick “o” and get a thin one.

The first letters don’t even line up.

It only gets worse from here.

In Item 2, the “O” on Obama’s certificate is visibly higher in the Obama images. This kind of “flying capital letter” made by a typewriter is caused by the fact that the typing mechanism wasn’t fully shifted to the capital-letter position when the letter was struck.

Click for bigger image.

When you overlay Obama’s “Oahu” with Ah’Nee’s, the initial capital letters don’t even line up!

It also looks visibly different. Once again, Obama’s “O” has some thin places. Look at the top of the letter and at its upper right. Also compare the two “u”s in particular. On the Ah’Nee certificate, her “u” is bleeding together at the top.

Clearly, Item #2 on Obama’s certificate is not a digital copy of the corresponding one on Ah’Nee’s.


Click for bigger image.

And the third item is even worse — in fact, it’s impossible.

It’s impossible, because the “a” on Ah’Nee’s certificate is so heavily inked that you can’t see the top gap in the letter at all.

Even the gap in the bottom part of that “a” is almost invisible. But the top one is gone completely.

You don’t digitally copy an “a” with no gaps and get one with gaps. So there’s simply no way that Obama’s second “Oahu” is a direct copy of the Ah’Nee one.


Items 4 (left) & 5 (right).

For items four and five, the X’s aren’t even in the same place in the box. Once again, this is clown car stuff.

Compare the top images (Ah’Nee) with the bottom ones (Obama).

Of course, if the audience doesn’t look closely for these things, they will never know. And Arpaio and company have always had the ability to attract more news coverage and publicity than those who have critically analyzed what they’ve done.

But Here’s the Mystery.

All of that said, they have uncovered a mystery.

Why can you copy “Honolulu,” “Oahu,” and “Oahu” from Ah’Nee’s certificate onto Obama’s and have those three words line up almost perfectly?

See the overlaid image below.

WHY?

Isn’t that actually a bit odd?

This was the one thing that puzzled me in going through Arpaio’s “9 Points of Forgery.” All of the other things have clear answers. But this?

And yes, we know that — assuming both certificates are genuine — they were likely typed up on the same model of typewriter, or quite possibly the exact same machine. So the spacing and line feeds would be the same, or at least extremely close.

But still… why would these three words — and only these three words — line up so… obediently… like that?

This is the thing that stands out most impressively in Arpaio’s video.

At first, I thought it was simply that the typewriter had tab stops, and the typist just used those tab stops. But… no, that’s not it. If that were the case, a bunch of other things would line right up as well.

Now it turns out that we can identify a really, really good reason for this strange phenomenon. 

Can you guess what it is?

Dwell on it, and we’ll come back to it later — especially as there’s another bit of mystery just ahead.

“Points of Forgery” 6 and 7 — Are the Date Stamp Angles Identical?

First of all, this is a bit of a nonsense question… because Zullo admits in the video that his colleague Mark Gillar had to first rotate the image in order to get any of these stamps to line up!

Aside from which, even if the date stamp angles were identical, that doesn’t matter as long as it’s clear that you simply can’t get the date stamps on Obama’s certificate by copying the date stamps from Ah’Nee’s — and as we will see in a moment, that is, in fact, clear. (See also the earlier photo with Arpaio and cow.)

If it isn’t the exact same physical stamp that was used on both certificates, it appears to be the same model. But the ink has flowed differently. Compare the “9”s in each case, for example. Then compare the “6”s. Like a picture of one cow and a different cow, it’s obviously not the same image.

And of course, the dates aren’t even the same.

Once again, you can’t get Obama’s by copying Ah’Nee’s — the letters and numbers look different, and the dates aren’t even the same.

For this reason, even if the angles on the two stamps were absolutely identical, it would be a very remarkable coincidence, and nothing more.

But are they?

It wouldn’t necessarily be surprising if they were very close, but it would be surprising if we checked the angles and came out with a result that those angles are totally identical.

So how might we check whether the angles might be the same?

Well, I can think of a way.

If the angles are identical, and the “stamp a” sides line up perfectly, then the “stamp b” sides will as well.

If both angles are identical, then you can line one pair of angles up perfectly, and the other pair will also have to line up exactly.

See right for an illustration of how this works.

Now we don’t need to work with all of the form items in between the date stamps, so we’ll copy just the date stamps into a new graphic.

We’ll make sure that in all cases, we copy them over without rotating anything, so that we perfectly preserve their original angles. Digital graphics will do this with 100% precision.

We’ll put the Obama ones on one layer, so that we can move those together. (That’s like putting the first triangle on a single transparency, that we can then rotate.)

We’ll put the Ah’Nee ones on a second layer, so that the Ah’Nee items — making up her triangle — will also rotate perfectly together.

And then we will rotate one of these layers (it doesn’t matter which one) so that the two date stamps on the left are as perfectly aligned as we can get them.

How do we measure whether they’re perfectly lined up? Pretty simple. First, we create a rectangular box. We can rotate the box and use it as a guide to the angle. The graphics program will keep the top and bottom of the box perfectly, absolutely parallel to each other.

Once we have the date stamps on the left perfectly aligned with each other, using our box as a guide, then we can create a similar box for the date stamps on the right.

And if all of the date stamps have the exact same angle, then our box on the right will show that.

If they aren’t, the box will show that as well.

So that’s what I’ve done below. (Again, you can click for an even bigger view.)

Nope! The angles are close, but they’re not “identical.”

As you can see, the date stamps on the left are now lined up at precisely the same angle, or as close as we can possibly get.

If Arpaio and Zullo’s claim is correct, then the date stamps on the right will now have to line up with absolute precision as well.

But note that the bottom of the blue box is not exactly in line with the second Obama date stamp, at the bottom right. See what’s happening? That line, which is exactly in line with the one for the top date stamp, is eating right into the lower right portion of the bottom right date stamp.

If we want a line that’s the same angle as the bottom right date stamp, we have to draw it in — which I’ve done, in red.

All of this shows that the angles are notin fact, the same!

Yes, they’re close. But they aren’t the same.

So what’s the difference in angles? The graphics program will allow us to measure that, too – and pretty precisely. All I have to do is to rotate that red line until it’s as exactly parallel with the blue one as I can get it. And the program will tell me how many degrees it takes.

It’s about 1.43 degrees of difference.

Is this perfectly precise? Or, to put it another way: If I do the exact same experiment again, will I get the exact same value, right down to the 1/100th of a degree?

Well, probably not. But I will likely get something close.

So I think we can go with approximately 1.43 degrees.

Now 1.43 degrees is a pretty small angle. I’ve isolated the angle above, so you can get a good feel for it.

But here’s the problem. In order for their claim to be true, this angle can’t be 1.43 degrees.

It has to be so close to zero that we can’t even tell the difference. And it isn’t.

And we would also need to get that “indistinguishable from zero” result every time we were to test it.

You see, with digital graphics, you don’t copy over one angle and get another one that’s clearly different — unless you deliberately rotate something.

And that was their entire point: that the angles were supposedly perfectly identical, without anybody having to rotate any of the stamps.

So even by their own measure, their theory fails.

Still, it does seem a bit odd that the date stamps are so close to the same angle. We know these date stamps weren’t digitally copied – we’ve proven that now. And not one way, but two. First we showed that they weren’t copies of each other, and then we showed that they weren’t even at the same angle.

But it does seem a bit odd that they’re so close to being the same angle.

In fact, let’s call that Part B of the Mystery.

So now we have a two-part Mystery.

Why do we have three words that line up very closely on both certificates, and why are the date stamps at such similar angles?

And they’re not just at similar angles – they’re also placed very similarly in their respective boxes, too.

We’ll come back to these questions shortly — because some additional detective work is going to crack the Mystery.

But first, let’s quickly wrap up our nine points.

“Points of Forgery” 8 and 9 Fail, Too.

Close, but no cigar.

For this, I’m going to use the high-resolution AP image — because the PDF is so blocky that all you can see is pixels. It’s so rough and approximate that you really can’t tell what’s going on.

The illustration shows field 6d from Ah’Nee’s certificate (top), and fields 6d and 7e from Obama’s. Arpaio and Zullo claim 6d was copied to create both of these.

By the way, that’s the same 7e on Obama’s certificate that they previously told you was copied from 7e on Ah’Nee’s, remember?

All of these are close, but if you look carefully, the first Obama X is definitely lower than Ah’Nee’s — there’s space between “o” and “X” — and to the left.

And the second Obama X is quite close. But look at the bottom right. It appears to be just a bit further left in the box than Ah’Nee’s.

Not to mention: Look at all the space visible between the legs of the X in the bottom box. Now look at the same area of the top X. Once again, you can’t copy something that has no gap, and get a gap.

Close, but no cigar.

Utterly Demolished.

And with this, we have completely and utterly demolished Arpaio/ Zullo/ Gillar’s theory that “9 points of forgery prove Johanna Ah’Nee’s birth certificate was used as a source document to create Obama’s.”

There’s nothing left but a dusty pile of rubble.

But we are still left with our Mystery.

We will uncover another Jaw-Dropper, and solve that Mystery, in Part 2.

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

57 Responses to The Final Word on Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate

  1. Thanks for the new article. The last Arpaio press conference was really bad. So bad one would have to wonder why he and Zullo even bothered. I know you and I have discussed Arpaio’s possible motivation off line.

    You found some new discoveries such as the video being self contradicting in at least two places. This last video falls into the category of “let’s throw excrement against the wall and see what sticks!” It’s almost childish. The date stamp angle claim always struck me as really strange. Why copy the date stamps from another certificate when you would have to turn around and change the dates anyway? Zullo and Gillar presented no evidence at all that the “24” was somehow replaced with “-8”. If one were creating a forgery it would be much easier to go on eBay and buy an old self inking date stamp like the ones used in 1961. Of course if you were going to create part of the date on a computer why not create the who thing?

    I don’t have answer yet on mystery A but as to mystery B about the angles of the dates being similar (but not identical as you demonstrated) I have a theory:

    I think someone date stamped a pile of certificates at once when they were ready to be filed. If the person placed their arm below the bottom center of the certificates it would be natural to swing their hand in an arc as they stamped the lower left and lower right boxes. I think other Hawaii birth certificates show similar angles.

    I think Doc C may have discussed the same theory about the date stamp before he quit posting new articles.

    I look forward to part 2.

  2. “By the way, Arpaio and his team never responded to the charges and the evidence of their wrongdoing. Probably there wasn’t much they could say.”

    I think either Zullo or Gillar made a lame attempt to address the race codes. It was on a radio show (not Gallups’s show). I think they claimed they called someone at the CDC in Atlanta the day before the press conference and they verified the codes. I don’t think they gave a name of who they supposedly talked to about the codes or what was discussed in detail. I recall they tried to push the blame on to Corsi. We know they were wrong regardless.

    • Charles Hughes says:

      Zullo on Mike Volin’s show in December 2016 or January 2017 admitted the out-of-sequence certificate number was a failed theory and didn’t prove forgery.

      Recently, Gillar tweeted that the layers in the PDF were caused by the the Xerox 7655.

      Those three things (layers, race codes, and certificate number sequence) were the bulk of the “evidence” presented at the July, 2012 press conference.

    • John M. Woodman says:

      RC: Their excuse that they called someone at the CDC sounds to me to be just that: An excuse.

      Zullo, Corsi and Gillar all specifically said they had the documentation from 1961.

      Gillar posted this on the video page: “We have the 1961 manual… We have the V.K.L. recording and the manual. Only a few left in the US. Hard to get.”

  3. scott e. says:

    how are you at global warming ? anyway i’m real glad you’re back… scott e.

    • John M. Woodman says:

      Hello, Scott.

      I’m really not “back.” Or, I’m only back for the final hurrah.

      I notice that you had Gillar’s “9 Points of Forgery” video posted at
      your site. Sorry to have to disappoint you. As always, if there had
      been anything of substance there, I would have backed them up.

      You asked how I am at global warming. Well, I’ll tell you. I have a
      strong background in science, and probably even more importantly, I
      understand what I am and am not an expert in, so I defer to the conclusions of those thousands of actual climate scientists who’ve
      done the research.

      My research has been limited to understanding what those conclusions are, and how strong they are.

      And the result of that is that it’s crystal clear that global warming
      is a real phenomenon, and all available evidence strongly indicates that those changes in climate are being driven by human activities.

      So it’s a serious problem that we need to seriously address, or we’re going to find ourselves in serious trouble.

      Kind of like the coronavirus issue that was too broadly ignored,
      minimized, and brushed off in this country through January, February, and the first half of March.

      Hope you’re doing well.

      • Charles Hughes says:

        Hey John,

        Scott owes you $25,000 for disproving the 9-points video (at best shouldn’t it be label 8-points of forgery?).

        I doubt if he ever intended to pay the money. All talk.

        • John M. Woodman says:

          Does Scott owe me $25,000?

          Pay up, Scott! You can email me for an address. You have my email.

          Early on there was a public “challenge” where someone on YouTube a “serious offer” to produce another scanned document that had letters in it identical down to the pixel.

          I produced the scanned document… still waiting for the $10,000….

          • Charles Hughes says:

            Scott on twitter has been saying he would give $25,000 to anyone who could debunk the 9-points of forgery video. You have debunked it.

            I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for him to pay up. We all know how good his word is.

            • Yes, I seem to recall he made a commitment to debate Frank Arduini on Reality Check Radio then failed to show. It seems he is not a man of his word.

              Edit: This one posted fine too!

            • John M. Woodman says:

              Maybe he was just sick that day.

              I’m counting on him to follow through with the $25,000.

          • I read Part II. Scott E. so owes you $25,000 John.

    • Hello Scott. How are you at global warming?

      • Dang, I used BBCode instead of html. I thought you could edit here?

        Edit: Well that’s funny. I can edit this comment but not the previous one.

        • John M. Woodman says:

          I can edit it. 🙂

          As you’ve already figured out, you can use basic html.

          You can edit, but only for a limited period of time. I think it’s 30 minutes.

          • On the first comment I got an error message that said it was a duplicate post even though it was not. That has happened to me a couple of times since you opened up comments. I opened the blog from scratch and the comment was there but there was no choice to edit or delete it.

            It might have to do with my slow satellite internet connection.

            • The same thing happened on the last post. I will send you a screen shot.

            • John M. Woodman says:

              It could have to do with the satellite connection, or it might possibly be something with my server.

              I haven’t done much maintenance on the site for years, and have been catching up with that. I also did a bit of server maintenance yesterday.

              Let me know if you keep having problems.

            • Yes, I am still seeing the problem. It seems to happen about every other comment.

            • John M. Woodman says:

              Does it post the comment? With no choice to edit or delete?

              And have you hit the Post Comment button more than once?

              When I tried to put this comment in, it seemed not to respond, so I hit the post button twice. Then it told me I had a duplicate comment.

          • “Does it post the comment? With no choice to edit or delete?”

            Yes.

            “And have you hit the Post Comment button more than once?”

            No

            Edit: This comment posted fine and the Edit button is obviously there since this is an edit.

  4. It looks like Scott only owes John $10,000. I will even give up my rightful claim to the money since John published these two excellent articles.

    https://twitter.com/WashAmeriCom/status/1248625562681102340

    • Charles Hughes says:

      He up it to $25,000

      https://mobile.twitter.com/WashAmeriCom/status/1255573278804127746

      And of course he lied that no one had come forward with the proof.

      • John M. Woodman says:

        Ah. Well, there we go.

        I have officially claimed the prize.

        Scott, please email me — you have my email address — and we can arrange for payment. You can feel really great about this. I have been working hard for the past few years on solutions to some of our most serious national problems, and will use the money to help further that cause.

        Email me your phone number, and we’ll talk about it.

        And thank you in advance.

      • Yes, I see now where he upped the award. Oh my! Get out your check book Scott.

        Of course Scott could prepare a very detailed rebuttal to John’s articles with real evidence and facts that a neutral third party would find more convincing.

        Edit: John, my comments have posted several times now without any error.

        • John M. Woodman says:

          This makes a total of $35,000 that I am expecting to receive.

          Singer Dana Kamide owes me $10,000.

          In June of 2011, he posted a YouTube video onto his “3TruthSeeker33” YouTube account, entitled, “Final Proof: Obama Birth Certificate a Fake, a Forgery, $10,000 Challenge!”

          He noted that there were three letter “u”s in Obama’s PDF that were identical down to the pixel, and offered $10,000 to anyone who could duplicate that effect. He concluded with, “This is a serious challenge!”

          So I stepped forward to claim the prize. Unfortunately, I haven’t received it yet. But I’m sure it has simply gotten delayed.

    • John M. Woodman says:

      I appreciate your generosity, RC! 😉

    • Of course all these Birther challenges are phony and they never pay. I doubt if Scott has the money anyway. I challenged Mark Gillar back in 2013 when he posted the people are going to jail video to a bet of $1000 that no one would be convicted of forgery of Obama’s birth certificate before 2016. I had to pick an end date but it was negotiable.

      Of course he never took the bet and of course I would have won. I never found a Birther willing to put his money where his mouth was.

  5. John M. Woodman says:

    I’ve moved several comments to Part 2 because they have more to do with the content of that section.

  6. John M. Woodman says:

    I’ve got a new name for these people.

    The Kold Kase Kops.

    It’s a shame I didn’t think of it until the very end of the road.

    At the same time, I’m not sure it does justice to the entire thing.

    Because it doesn’t capture the millions of dollars that Arpaio appears to have gained in campaign contributions by pushing this nonsense.

    • John M. Woodman says:

      This can be abbreviated, “KKK.”

      The “K” reference is 100% to the Keystone Kops, and not to the Ku Klux Klan.

      However, I do accept that a certain amount of birtherism was motivated, whether consciously or subconsciously, by racism toward America’s first black President.

      Back at the very beginning, in 2009-2011, I didn’t want to believe it. But it didn’t really take that long to recognize that it was undeniable.

      • northland10 says:

        However, I do accept that a certain amount of birtherism was motivated, whether consciously or subconsciously, by racisim toward America’s first black President.

        IMO, Arpaio’s use of birtherism is directed at those who have some sort of racial bias, whether his fundraising targets are aware of their bias. I find this actually to be even more objectionable as it seeks to use the weakness of others for his own personal benefit and not for some racial bias he may have.

  7. I tried to email Mike Zullo a link to John’s latest articles but his Earthlink.net address no longer works. Remember when Earthlink used to be one of the best dial up Internet providers?

    In other news it looks like Scott E. has run away.

Comments are closed.