PostHeaderIcon Rearranging Prejudices

I have always prided myself on having a remarkably open mind, which I use for critical thinking to form my own opinions, rather than blindly accepting those of so-called experts and conventional wisdom. Once formed this way, I can and do defend my opinions with zeal; but I always try to keep my mind open to the possibility of error in my judgment, and new data that challenges the validity of what I think I know. Thus, when someone with a cogent argument forces me to reevaluate a long-held belief, rather than dogmatically being stuck on stupid, I am quite willing to admit my error and rearrange my prejudices.

Regular readers will know that I take a back seat to no one regarding the Obamunist being ineligible for the office of POTUS, on the grounds that he is not a natural born citizen (NBC). Since the first time I heard that he was born a subject of the British Empire, I have been ranting and railing on the subject, and when he was elected, I promised the issue would not go away. It hasn’t, and won’t; nor should it.

At the same time, I have frequently been critical of the so-called ‘birther’ movement, for their focus on trying to document the place of his birth, which is immaterial to his NBC status as I view it. I.e., “Born a Brit – Not Legit,” wherever that blessed event may have occurred. Still, I have been unable to avoid a morbid curiosity for all of the details Jerome Corsi, et al, have uncovered regarding the Obamessiah’s phony nativity narrative. Thus, I am a regular reader of the eligibility section of WND, even though much of it is repetitious recycling of past articles, primarily to feed the cottage industry they have spawned over the issue.

I must admit to a soft spot for Jerome Corsi, since he co-authored, “Unfit For Command,” which helped tremendously toward defeating John Kerry, the miscreant I have despised since his treasonous youth in 1973, when he was cavorting with the communist North Vietnamese, throwing away medals, and accusing vets of war crimes. Thus, while critical in general of the focus of the so-called ‘birthers,’ I perhaps have avoided noticing just how much Corsi’s leaps of logic, non sequiturs, and dogged determination to place Obama’s birth in Kenya, have driven that misplaced focus.

Since Corsi’s huge tactical error in not naming his latest book the obvious, “Ineligible For Command” instead of “Where’s The Birth Certificate,” which allowed Obama to upstage its release by producing a long-sought “long form” copy, he has been focused on proving it a forgery. He has produced an impressive array of so-called experts from several different fields, who each claim to have definitive proof that the PDF file released by Obama was not a scan of an official document, but was created with graphic software in a cut & paste job from other legitimate BCs.

While some of Corsi’s earlier pronouncements were laughable, and to my mind embarrassing (the ‘smiley face’ in Alvin as part of the forger’s ‘signature’ comes to mind), the sheer number of anomalies highlighted by these folks was so overwhelming that I, like untold thousands of others, had succumbed to repeating the notion that the PDF file was not only a forgery, but a hopelessly amateurish, sloppy, and obvious one. I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that I dismissed the so-called experts the Obots put forward claiming otherwise, as obviously partisan, because nobody could possibly explain away all of the anomalies.

Oops… not so fast. Last evening, I stumbled across a comment to an eligibility issue related article I had just read, mentioning a new book by someone purporting to be a TEA Party conservative, supposedly debunking all the forgery claims. Reckoning that to be an impossible task, I immediately assumed it was an Obot masquerading as a conservative, and that the book would avoid dealing with the really serious flaws, in another typical BS storm of obfuscating blather, so typical of the Obots. Still, I was curious to see what they were up to, so I went looking for this new author.

His name is John Woodman, and the name of his book is the unimaginative, “Is Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud?” He has a website named, very much dedicated to marketing his book. This is not an indictment; if I had written it, I would be doing the same. I watched his introductory video, where he comes across as a low key, homespun, sort of all around computer geek, not at all an academic so-called ‘expert.’ Of course, given my disdain for academia and intellectual snobbery, this was a plus for me.

His claim to be a TEA Party type Republican with serious issues over Obama’s policies was unpersuasive to me. I have observed the skill with which some Obots can do the same thing initially in a comment section debate, before dropping the pose once outed. I still figured him to be an Obot; but at least he was coming across as a reasonable one. The total effect was sufficient to cause me to be ever more interested in what he had to say, so I looked up the title on Amazon.

I found his book had just been released there, and there was not a single review of it posted. That in and of itself seemed odd; because one would have expected the Obots to salt the review section with glowing reviews. A free preview was available for the Kindle version, so I downloaded it. To my surprise, I remained sufficiently intrigued enough to pop the modest $5 for the whole book, and spent the rest of my evening reading it in its entirety. I was in no way prepared for the outcome of that experience.

To my utter amazement, he covered virtually all of the anomalies highlighted by Corsi’s coterie of experts, and makes a surprisingly persuasive case that none of their supposed ‘irrefutable proofs’ that the long form BC is a forgery are unexplainable. To be candid, as a huge fan of Occam’s razor, most of his explanations regarding the ‘layers’ created by the automated optimization process of the ‘scan to PDF’ software, make far more sense than the contortions a ‘forger’ would have had to go through to create the same effect manually in a graphics program, and one need not continually ask, “Why in the world did he do that?”

This does not mean that the BC wasn’t copied from an inauthentic original that has somehow found its way into the HDOH vault, which Hawaii continues to go to extraordinary effort to avoid being examined by forensic experts, and it certainly does not detract from the basic definition of NBC (Born a Brit – Not Legit); but I am no longer persuaded that the PDF itself was created in a graphics program, and I will immediately stop asserting that it is an “obvious forgery.”

Of course, it means I must now modify my knee-jerk negative opinion of politicians, candidates, and even Donald Trump, for not speaking out over such an “obvious forgery.” If the PDF is not a ‘smoking gun,’ and I now reckon it is not, we are back to debatable issues over the definition of NBC; because if there is a BC smoking gun, it is locked up in the HDOH vault, and the courts are disinclined to force them to allow anyone to see it.

In the end, I doubt that Mr. Woodman sells very many books. Most ideologues are uninterested in changing their minds and/or rearranging their prejudices, and will write him off as just another obfuscating Obot; but I commend him for a well done project, which cleared some cobwebs from my own mind, with his plain spoken, easy to follow, explanations of computer processes, which most of us who are not graphic artists do not understand all that well. I still suspect that he is more Obot than TEA Partier; but that detracts not at all from the value of his book. â—„Daveâ–º

105 Responses to “Rearranging Prejudices”

  • Saska says:

    Dave, I thought you were on “Our Side”! I’m very disappointed in you! Check out the comeback on your “Rearranging Prejudices” on Bernie Goldberg from Proe Graphique:

    • Hi Saska,

      I tried to respond to your friend Proe; but it included a link to my own initial letter to Bernie responding to the same “Devilish Questions” article, and it got hung up in moderation on his website. He never approved it for publication, so I wrote him off as probably a blind partisan, uninterested in truth. Should I try again? â—„Daveâ–º

  • Trial says:

    How dare you Dave! Curse you and your objective mind! Have you no shame!?

  • Troy says:

    If you accept Cashill’s interpretation of Stanley Dunham’s mating habits,you must conclude that, whatever Barry’s real name, he is most likely a NBC. According to Cashill, who makes a credible argument, Stanley’s father convinced Barack Obama (the real one), to claim fatherhood to paper over the problem that Stanley may not even have been sure which of several black men impregnated her. Whoever it may have been, Cashill convinced me it was NOT Barack Obama.

    This explanation solves, for me, something that has puzzled me from the start.. namely that the Obamanation is not nearly as negroid as one would expect for the product of a pure blooded black African man and a white woman. Given the Obamanation’s skin tone and nearly European features, his real father was very likely himself not purely black as is the case with most blacks who are descended from American slaves.

    I trust nobody reading this will interpret it as some form of racism. It is merely an attempt to explain the obvious without assigning value to any of the attributes involved. As anyone who has followed my blogs should know, I think that groups of people are separated primarily by culture and that trivial environmental adaptations have little or nothing to do with anything – excepting, perhaps, evidence in a question of parentage.


    • I’m glad you read the book. It is about the best one on this sordid subject. Yes, if Obama was in fact born on American soil, there is a good chance that he actually was a NBC, before he or his mother decided to make him a subject of the British crown. Now that he has claimed the BC is his, it is too late to change his parentage – he is stuck with it, and thus is not a NBC. Put another way, he can’t claim NBC status of having two American citizen parents, without admitting felonious fraud. Besides, I still think he was born in Canada in a home for wayward pregnant teenaged girls, who would be an embarrassment to their parents.

      Agreed. He looks nothing like BHO Sr. and much like Davis. I think the sham marriage to BHO Sr. was arranged as much for his benefit as hers. It gave him a claim to apply for resident alien status.

      I am sick of the ‘white guilt’ BS, and over apologizing to anybody for being born white. I’ve got more Cherokee blood than many so-called ‘blacks’ have African blood, so if they want to talk about ancestors being mistreated, bring it on… â—„Daveâ–º

  • Trial says:

    “If you accept Cashill’s interpretation of Stanley Dunham’s mating habits,you must conclude that, whatever Barry’s real name, he is most likely a NBC.”

    You probably just made some “birther” heads explode. I’ve been one to believe the NBC issue may be a distraction in and of itself, BUT, Barack Obama is definitely hiding something. And thus, by hiding this information, he more than likely has committed crimes. Just one cursory glance at Obama’s history should bring up red flags. The thing about the “birthers” though, is they’re willing to look into Obama’s past unlike most everyone else.

    Also, I find it incredibly sad we can’t discuss such issues without someone calling us a “racist.” It really goes to show how bad this country has gotten. I want my white history month ;D

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    Mr. Woodman is now deleting my comments. I wrote this to you and Woodman:

    “Hey Dave,

    Is it safe to say at this point Mr. Woodman is a hypocrite? Or, is there another word that better describes Mr. Woodman?

    Hey Mr. Woodman,
    I don’t recall you getting on Dr. Neal Krawetz for performing analyses while saying “none of this matters anyways.” Yet, you have repeatedly said he is an “expert” and you implied you agreed with his analysis. Now, the analysis itself may not be wrong, but, “Krawetz simply didn’t go into it in an objective manner.”

    See what I did there?”

    After he deleted it, I re-posted it. Not sure if he will delete it again.

    Granted, I was kind of attacking him, but none of the anti-birthers comments were erased and we’ve all seen the kind of stuff they wrote to me.
    Also, remember that Proe Graphiques guy? Here’s some info not many people know about:
    Both of them were getting into arguments online a while ago. Mr. Woodman finally blocked him from his youtube site after he got tired of debating. Mr. Woodman sure is a funny guy!

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    Yep, he deleted it again. Just to put my comment into context this is the comment I was replying to by Mr. Woodman:

    “Dave, are you aware that Paul Irey himself publicly confessed that he “knew” before even looking at the birth certificate that it was a forgery, and that his entire purpose in examining the birth certificate fonts was simply to try and come up with evidence to prove that?

    Irey simply didn’t go into it in an objective manner.”

    I feel I needed to write this somewhere just in case Mr. Woodman tries to scrub his own comments as well.

    • Well, well, well… What had appeared to be a place for reasonable debate seems to have deteriorated rather suddenly. For what it is worth, my recent reply to this comment by John was:

      Come, come, John why continue flirting around lifting your skirt? You may as well disrobe. To challenge the motive or objectivity of Irey is Obot 101. What possible difference does it make to me, the skeptic seeking truth, what caused him to expend the time and effort to carefully examine the typography in the document, if I can see for myself the anomalies he reports? Frankly, I appreciate his forthright reply to the questioner. Why else examine it, if one were not suspicious of the claims of one side or the other of the controversy?

      I took the trouble to read your book, even though I was suspicious of your own objectivity. I found value in it, accepted the evidence you presented, and even changed my own mind in the process. Possessing an uncommonly open and objective mind of my own, your motive for writing it had no bearing on its value and effect to me. Now that I am discerning that you do in fact have an agenda, only disappoints me; it does not change the value and effect of the evidence you presented one iota. Data is data; whoever compiles it, for whatever reason. Ad hominem and/or non sequitur argumentation, rarely gets past my BS filters. â—„Daveâ–º

      I hope he doesn’t think that a defamatory personal attack; but then again, he does have a book to sell… â—„Daveâ–º

      • John Woodman says:

        Dave, to be honest, I do consider it a bit of a defamatory personal attack, albeit a mild one, so I let it stand.

        Quite frankly: Who do you think you are, to tell me what my own motives are? You don’t know me personally. If you did, you would know that what you see is what you get.

        How would you feel if someone who didn’t know you from Adam publicly promoted the claim that you’re dishonest, a hypocrite, a liar?

        Now add in the fact that the charge is false. Now how do you feel?

        Nonetheless, you’re entitled to your opinion, and your suspicions, as wrong as they may be. But nobody is entitled to post false accusations about me on my blog. Nor should they be. Would you allow that in your own space? I doubt it. Nor should you.

  • John Woodman says:

    Yes, of course I deleted the comment.

    I don’t mind differences of opinion, but coming onto my blog and posting false and defamatory personal attacks is over the line.

    • Chester A. Arthur says:

      What do you mean, “of course”? What you are doing is censorship. If you don’t agree to what I wrote, reply back and state just that. And what about the attacks from the anti-birthers to me and others? You didn’t delete their comments. Funny that. But, guess you gotta get some money off of books…
      Oh! And I have been following you for a while now. You have a history of censorship. So, when anti-birthers lie it’s okay, but when someone who disagrees with you says something “of course it will be deleted?”
      Either you need to get thicker skin, you’re an Obot, or you’re just trying to make money off a book dear sir. Oh, but, I forgot! You’re supposedly a tea party conservative who though Obama was probably born over seas to begin with! Hey Mr. Woodman, I think you’ve been lying from the start. But hey, that’s just me.

      Now, I should also mention I consider this different than discussing the book. The book is very good! So was Bill Ayer’s book for that matter.


      “posting false and defamatory personal attacks”

      First off, you’re a hypocrite. Second, I did no such thing. Nice try Mr. Woodman.

      • John Woodman says:

        I’m not a hypocrite, so the charges are false. They’re both negative and false, as well as public, so that makes them defamatory.

        > what about the attacks from the anti-birthers to me and others?
        > You didn’t delete their comments. Funny that.

        About the first thing I did when people started attacking each on on my blog was make a post asking them, in a nice way, to knock it off. I frankly don’t like personal attacks on anybody. But it seemed like everybody was having fun, so I kind of gave up.

        As soon as you posted what you did, I changed that by adding a bunch of typical accusatory words to what WordPress filters. So when I deleted your comment, I also changed the system to help keep others from doing a similar thing to you.

        In the Internet age, we seem to have forgotten common courtesy, and we also seem to have forgotten that we’re dealing with other human beings.

        > Oh! And I have been following you for a while now. You have a
        > history of censorship.

        You stated that I blocked “Proe Graphique” from my YouTube channel. Unless “Proe Graphique” goes by another name over at YouTube, that’s not true. The user that I blocked really had no other “meaningful” content other than to publicly call me a “dumbass,” which he did literally dozens of times before I blocked him. When I finally did, I realized I should’ve done so much sooner. I’m not sure why I took his nonsense as long as I did, except that I was trying to be gracious even to someone who was repeatedly and publicly engaging in nothing but name-calling.

        I’m a human being. I have a wife and 6 kids, and I go out every day and create the best value I can in the marketplace so that I can provide for my wife and family. And I do so in completely honest and professional way. If you and Dave don’t understand that, or can’t believe it, that’s your problem. But not allowing personal attacks at my site isn’t “censorship.” It’s a matter of enforcing simple human decency. If you wouldn’t come into my home and let me serve you tea, and then sit there and call me a hypocrite, don’t do it online.

      • John Woodman says:

        And incidentally, if there are any baseless personal attacks on you that you want removed, let me know and I will look at it.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        Hmm? I asked Dave a question. Nice try though.

        And, what’s up with you playing the pity card all the time and telling us how we should think or feel? LOL.

        The hypocrisy of yours (which I am NOW saying, in the original comment it was a question) stems from the “expert” canard the anti-birthers like to play around with. You’re so willing to say what you did about Irey, but when it comes to a certain Dr……(hush hush).

        I do consider you a hypocrite. But hey, anyone can go back to your blog posts and judge for themselves. It’s not my place to say how others should think or feel…although, you feel you have the right?

  • John Woodman says:

    Incidentally, what I wrote about Paul Irey was 100% accurate. His confession in that regard is available in his own words.

    • Yes, I have seen it myself, John; but so what? How does that change the evidence he presents? My suspicion is that the ‘forgery’ was inserted as a hard copy in the DHOH vault, and the certified copy given to the WH was scanned from it. Thus, both you and Irey could be right. You that the PDF was not created in a graphics program, and he that there are typography irregularities within it. I don’t see either of your agendas of importance in allaying that suspicion. Only a forensic analysis of the original typed document, if such exists, by representatives of both sides of the controversy, could possibly do that. â—„Daveâ–º

    • Chester A. Arthur says:

      I can’t believe you’re still saying that. No one disagreed with you, but it’s far from the point. Do you even realize how much of a hypocrite you are?

      • John Woodman says:

        Obviously I don’t. Quite frankly, I can’t understand at all why you accuse me of hypocrisy.

        And I’m very self-aware, so I think if I were a hypocrite, I’d have a clue about it.

        I posted what I posted about Paul Irey because a) it’s 100% true, and b) it’s very relevant regarding whether his analysis on the fonts is credible. The statement shows that Paul Irey was never examining the fonts to see whether or not they implied fraud. He examined them with the assumption that the document was fake, and was specifically looking for evidence that he could use to prove that the document was a forgery. He stated that in his own words.

        That’s very different from going into it with an open mind, and it skews the results. In fact, it MORE than skews the results, because he appears to have specifically excluded the possibility that the document wasn’t a forgery, from the very beginning.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        The hypocrisy stems from what you said about Dr. Neal Krawetz compared to what you say about Irey.

      • John Woodman says:

        There’s no hypocrisy in what I said about Neal Krawetz. If Krawetz had stated that he knew beforehand that a document was genuine, or fake, and was making his analysis in order to prove the point, then I would certainly note that he went into his review in a biased way as well, and I would regard that analysis as biased. At this point, I have absolutely no evidence that he said any such thing. If you do, then bring it forth, and I will declare Krawetz’s analysis biased. If you don’t, then your charge of hypocrisy is an obvious and complete fail, and you owe me an apology.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        From his articles:

        “TechDude was a fraud and used bad science to support a FALSE CONSPIRACY.”

        “MOOT POINT

        Before I begin evaluating Polarik’s claims, I would like to point out that the entire claim — that Obama was not born in Hawaii — IS FALSE. Representatives from the State of Hawaii have repeatedly authenticated Obama’s COLB.”

        “Regardless of whether the document on the web is real or tampered, the argument is moot; an authentic document exists. Thus, the CONSPIRACY HAS NO BASIS.”

        “The only one who can say whether the border and document are authentic is the state of Hawaii. And Hawaii has been saying that the accusation of a false COLB is “pretty ridiculous.” As far back as 15-Aug-2008, they have said that the COLB image is “a valid Hawaii state birth certificate”. Since Polarik has never claimed to be an expert in Hawaiian birth certificates, I’m going to have to go with the State’s opinion here and conclude that Polarik is wrong.”

        “I am always fascinated by new conspiracies. Even when shown the truth, some people hold tightly to their beliefs that something must be wrong.”

        “Unfortunately, there is not much I can say to the people who believe this image has been manipulated, except “YOU’RE WRONG.””

        “((And if any conspiracy nut thinks that every Republican and every Democrat is secretly working together to make Obama president, then you are seriously delusional.)”

        Emphasis mine.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        Oh wait, there’s more!

        “Remember: Obama is already a Senator and has been vetted for security clearance. Otherwise he could not be on committees like the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs — both committees have access to classified information. If he did misrepresent his birth certificate, then it would be immediately contradicted by his background check and would be used against him by his opposition.”

        “Back to Obama COLB: the image passed every test I could throw at it. It is “real”. And the lack of motive permits me to believe it is “authentic”.”

        “There is no way a doctored birth certificate from a US-state will go unchecked and pass the vetting system.”

        “It seems that a small handful of conspiracy freaks are ignoring an overwhelming number of facts in order to push their own defamation agenda. Unless there is any hard and scientifically provable analysis of a forgery from a reputable expert, I think it is time to stop propagating their forgery-myth.”

        “As for TexasDarlin, she has directly aligned herself with a racist viewpoint and made it clear that race is the primary reason for her dislike of Obama. All of this seriously undermines the credibility of the people making the forgery claims.”

        “Texas Darlin is nothing more than a conspiracy freak.”

        “Suffice to say, whatever the parents put down becomes the official record. There is no conspiracy here.”

        “There is no conspiracy here. These rules are in place to prevent governmental abuse of citizens.”

      • John Woodman says:

        Okay, I’ll agree with you. I think some of those statements do reveal some clear evidence of bias on Krawetz’s part. Particularly:

        “Before I begin evaluating Polarik’s claims, I would like to point out that the entire claim — that Obama was not born in Hawaii — IS FALSE. Representatives from the State of Hawaii have repeatedly authenticated Obama’s COLB.”

        “Regardless of whether the document on the web is real or tampered, the argument is moot; an authentic document exists. Thus, the CONSPIRACY HAS NO BASIS.”

        You ought to note that up until this point, I haven’t had much to say about Krawetz at all. Nor have I had much cause to try and evaluate his position, since he made very few comments regarding the long-form certificate. I’ve dealt very, very little with the COLB. About all Krawetz has said about the long-form birth certificate was that he didn’t note anything that looked suspicious.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        A handful of those comments were in with discussion of the long form. I used the comments he used discussing both the short form AND long form. He had a clear bias back then, and he has a clear bias now. And I would argue, that bias was VERY obvious. I don’t think you’re being completely honest Mr. Woodman.

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    Oh, and in response to this comment of yours Mr. Woodman:

    “I’ve read somewhere that those who are sincere are often misread.”

    You are being far from sincere. You are a hypocrite. You play the Obot games I’ve seen done a thousand times over. You criticized these games at a point, then went on to play them yourself. Are you even a tea party member? Are you sure you’re not still working for the government? Or, is it simple as you just want to sell some books, so you usually word things in a way to get “birther” buyers as well (the fogbowers are saying this about you, not me).

    • John Woodman says:

      That’s their opinion. If I were trying very hard to get “birther” buyers, I doubt I would’ve announced the book to the world with a press release that made it abundantly clear, from the title through every word of the release, that my three-month investigation revealed no good evidence of fraud. And I doubt I would have that fact quite openly discussed at my web site.

      In fact, if I had just wanted to sell books, I would’ve simply written a book uncritically combining all of the various theories of fraud, and claiming that they presented good evidence the document was a forgery. In that case, I’ve no doubt that WND would’ve added me to their stable of experts, promoted the book widely, and I would’ve made a lot of money. But that WOULD have been hypocrisy, since I knew better regarding the evidence from my own investigation. Instead, I chose to promote what I knew to be the truth.

      See? I do know what hypocrisy means.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        Good job! My own personal guess is though you may have written the book as per a request from a government official. Just my guess.

      • John Woodman says:

        And once again, you would be completely wrong.

        I undertook the investigation because I was interested in finding an answer to the title question: was Barack Obama’s birth certificate a fraud?

        Incidentally, if I had found that it was, and been able to prove the point beyond a reasonable doubt, then I would be quite famous by now, and the fact would have most likely ushered in a much more conservative government for at least 8 years, and quite possibly 12, starting in 2012.

        Having not been able to find that, do I then sit on three months’ worth of good research, and not publish it?

        Frankly, I don’t think the results make any difference to Obama’s chances for reelection. That’s going to be based largely on what happens with the economy between now and November of next year, and secondarily on who his Republican challenger is and how good a campaign that challenger mounts.

        The book is the truth, and the truth is worth publishing even if it may be inconvenient for some of us. It makes a major contribution to our understanding regarding a nationally-debated issue. It reassures honest, concerned Americans that our system has not failed us so completely that we have a clear, obvious, totally-proven fraud (at least in regard to his birth certificate) in the White House. Frankly, it highlights my computer and professional expertise. And publishing it is the only hope I have of ever receiving a single penny (which by the way is still in the future) for my long months of hard, careful, honest research.

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    “And once again, you would be completely wrong.”

    Or, am I?

    • John Woodman says:

      Okay, it now seems pretty clear to me at this point that you’re fairly determined to paint me as a hypocrite, no matter what the facts may be; and incapable of issuing an apology as well. That being the case, I wish you a good day.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        Your Bio:

        “John Woodman has spent 20 years as a computer guy in varying capacities — including programming, consulting, designing and building software (both for the US government and for private industry), networking, etc.”

        A certain member from fogbow was the one who “discovered” your youtube videos. The fogbowers went all around the internet the day your book released saying how all the “birthers” should buy your book (while posing as Anons and under other handles). The fogbowers were also saying on their own site how you wanted to “cash in” on the “birthers.” That certain member of Fogbow I mentioned has a VERY colorful history btw.

        But, hey, I’m sorry you’re offended by my hypothesis. I do have quite a lot of information I have not shared to anyone else as well (not particularly concerning you).

        2012 is gonna be a fun year!

      • John Woodman says:

        > A certain member from fogbow was the one who “discovered”
        > your youtube videos.

        Yes, and as I recall it took him about a month to do it, since I was in no communication with anybody from that forum at the time.

        If you want the complete behind-the-scenes story, after their one member ran across my videos, Bill Bryan — who is undoubtedly the member of Fogbow you refer to — contacted me, asking me to be interviewed on Reality Check radio. After a few exchanges, I revealed that I was working on a full book, and would consider the radio interview after I finished the book. So yes, Bryan knew about the book before it was published. In the course of our conversation, I eventually revealed that I had found no good evidence of fraud. Since that supported his side of the argument, he was understandably interested in the book’s release.

        On the other side of things, Dr. Jerome Corsi also discovered my videos around the same time as the guy from Fogbow, probably as a result of monitoring that forum. Assuming that jrlcorsi is Dr. Corsi on YouTube (which I think is a safe assumption), Dr. Corsi even subscribed to my YouTube channel. I attempted to correspond with Corsi, but received no reply. I also spoke to him verbally on a talk radio show some weeks ago, and informed him that I had significant disagreements with his conclusions. Aside from those two encounters, I also took the initiative to phone Dr. Corsi directly, and left a message, which he again never responded to. Finally, I also corresponded with Joseph Farah’s office and sent Farah a copy of the book in electronic format. This was followed recently by shipping them a free hard copy. To date, I’ve received no coverage at all from WND even though they’ve known about me and my research for some time now.

        So yes, by the time it was released, both sides of the debate knew about my book. Mr. Bryan liked the results of the investigation, so he promoted it. Farah and Corsi didn’t like the results, so they haven’t.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        Nope. I was referencing the guy who “found” your youtube videos to begin with. He has an “interesting” history. I’ll give you a hint about some of these Obots: many of them have military and judicial connections. Although, Foggy has a colorful history and an incident with forgery…but, that’s a little off-topic.

        And I certainly don’t disagree with you about Corsi or Farah, but, that’s a different topic.

      • John Woodman says:

        And again, I’d MUCH rather have Farah and Corsi (who have each promoted past books in such a way as to sell literally millions of copies) promoting my book or books, than have Bill Bryan, who has a FAR smaller audience, doing so. But I wasn’t willing to simply say the things required for that to happen, since I knew that those things weren’t true.

        So you’ve basically proven that far from being a hypocrite, I passed up the chance to become famous and make a bunch of money, preferring instead to be honest and tell the truth as best as I understand it.

      • John Woodman says:

        About all I know about Arduini (who as I recall was the guy who ran across my videos) is that he seems technically knowledgeable, had been in the military and was acquainted with one of the military guys involved in the Lakin case. That’s about it.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        “So you’ve basically proven that far from being a hypocrite,”

        LOL, hardly. There you go again, trying to confuse the issues.

        Hey, did you ever get around to changing “The Questions” section on your site? I brought it up 2 or 3 times and never got a reply.

      • John Woodman says:

        Sorry, but the statement stands.

        Regarding the “Questions” section — I’ve frankly never quite understood your point. I just don’t get what you’re driving at.

        Technically speaking, I’m sure you’re right: It’s theoretically possible that the birth certificate could be a forgery, and yet Obama could still have been born in the United States and be a perfectly legitimate President.

        But I fail to see how the supposition that a forged birth certificate implies an illegal President in any way supports those who support Obama. And while what you’re saying is theoretically true, practically speaking the possibility to me seems so very remote that it’s not really worth mentioning or splitting hairs over.

        If Obama was indeed born in the United States and is a legitimate President, then there would have been no reason for his campaign to produce a forged birth certificate, and every reason for them to simply order a genuine one from Hawaii.

        Besides which, it’s not even what you seem to be trying to prove. So I have no idea why you’d like for me to change it.

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    “If Obama was indeed born in the United States and is a legitimate President,”

    Well, then there’s still the matter of two citizen parents. Not that I think the argument would go anywhere, but it’s sill there.

    “then there would have been no reason for his campaign to produce a forged birth certificate, and every reason for them to simply order a genuine one from Hawaii.”

    You’re wrong, and possibly lying.

  • John Woodman says:

    Okay, you tell me: If Obama was born in the United States and is perfectly eligible to be President, then why would his campaign go to the trouble and enormous risk to create a criminal forgery of a fake birth certificate — AND take the further trouble and enormous risk of recruiting officials from the Hawaii Department of Health to commit fraud by lying about the fact — instead of popping down 15 bucks to present a real one?

    • Chester A. Arthur says:

      “Okay, you tell me: If Obama was born in the United States and is perfectly eligible to be President,”

      Let’s not forget about the two citizen parents debate.

      “then why would his campaign go to the trouble and enormous risk to create a criminal forgery of a fake birth certificate”

      To hide:
      Name change, adoption, what name he used to attend certain colleges, why he “gave up” his law license, why he has a SSN from Connecticut, cases of fraud, CIA connections, etc. Take your pick.

      Also, the whole thing about allegiances to other countries is an issue Barack Obama is not comfortable with, and may be a significant reason for presenting a “real” long form but a “fake” short form.

      “AND take the further trouble and enormous risk of recruiting officials from the Hawaii Department of Health”

      Just two or three people probably. Certainly not “all of Hawaii” like “birthers” and anti-birthers like to claim.

  • John Woodman says:

    Okay, I’ll grant the possibility. But forgery, conspiracy and fraud are some pretty big steps, with very significant risks. He would have to have some big skeletons in order for that step to make sense, even from a practical point of view.

    And don’t think Hillary and the Clintons wouldn’t have thrown Obama under the bus in order to get back into the White House, if they could’ve come up with the dirt to do it. Granted, they wouldn’t have had a huge amount of time to do it, but 2 to 2-1/2 months might well have been enough.

    Name change and adoption don’t seem sufficient reasons to me. Much better dealt with in a non-criminal way. Same with a different name used to attend certain colleges. College records are confidential. He’s never released his college records under any name. Same for why he “gave up” his law license and the rest of it. I still just don’t see that there would’ve really been any gain that would’ve justified the fraud.

    Besides which, the detection of any forgery would’ve led the public to assume ineligibility, which would’ve been as bad an outcome as any of the other reasons you named, but with the added effect of potential jail time.

    No, I still frankly don’t see it. Theoretically possible, but very unlikely. Still, in the interests of keeping the viewership happy (sort of), I’ll change the wording from:

    For if the birth certificate is a forgery, then we have an illegal President.


    For if the birth certificate is a forgery, then that implies that we have an illegal President.

    Does that make you feel better?

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    “Does that make you feel better?”

    The rewording? Yes.

    You not addressing the allegiance issue which is at the crux of why Obama would probably obtain fraudulent documents? No.

    Just keep in mind, if Obama’s SSN is invalid, but he was born in the U.S., why go through the trouble of getting the “fake” SSN? Do not ignore the allegiance issue. It’s big.

    “And don’t think Hillary and the Clintons wouldn’t have thrown Obama under the bus in order to get back into the White House, if they could’ve come up with the dirt to do it. Granted, they wouldn’t have had a huge amount of time to do it, but 2 to 2-1/2 months might well have been enough.”

    I’ve heard this poor logic used time and time again. The Obamas and the Clintons have a relationship of convenience. Hillary Clinton has implied she didn’t even want to become the President and she wants to move away from her role all together. I believe she has also stated she wants a job at the U.N.

    Just you wait until 2012. Certain documents will probably be released around March. *wink wink*

    Naturalized citizen is not the same as a Natural born Citizen.

    “He would have to have some big skeletons in order for that step to make sense, even from a practical point of view.”

    I laughed so hard when I read this statement.

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    Allegiance and natural born citizenship are important issues whether you believe Obama was born in Hawaii or not. By using this fact as your primary stepping stone, the rest of the pieces easily come together.

    Dave and I may disagree on a few points (I believe the long form is technically real, but “unathentic,” for lack of a better word, and I’m not so sure the “Born a Brit, not Legit” is necessarily true), but I respect Dave for his open mind.

    So Dave, what did you think of this comment by Mr. Woodman:

    “That’s very different from going into it with an open mind, and it skews the results. In fact, it MORE than skews the results, because he appears to have specifically excluded the possibility that the document wasn’t a forgery, from the very beginning.”

    Now, I’m no dummy. Did Mr. Woodman ever say what was wrong with this particular item of the analysis? Or, is he just continuing to use Obot 101?

    • No, he hasn’t, Chesty, and I have been giving considerable thought as to why so much of the birther v. anti-birther debate revolves around trying to discredit the researchers on either side, rather than evaluating the validity of their findings. I have been denigrated as a ‘birther,’ for repeating what my junior high history teacher taught me regarding the definition of NBC, and pointing out that BHO’s birth status, as a subject of the British Crown, disqualifies him for such status; even though the place and documentation of his birth are immaterial to my case. Yet, I have been denigrated as a fool, sellout, or even possibly an ‘Obot,’ for having the intellectual curiosity to objectively read Woodman’s book, and the temerity to then write an honest positive review of it.

      Frankly, I don’t see any difference in what Irey did and what Woodman claims he did. They both claim to be simply curious citizens, who became aware of the question of authenticity of a PDF file, purported to be a scan of a certified copy of BHO’s BC, posted by the WH on their website. Both decided to use their particular personal expertise to analyze it for themselves, and published their results in a manner where others, who lacked such expertise, could understand and see their findings for themselves.

      To me, their individual motives for taking it upon themselves to do their analysis, and then publicly insert themselves into the debate by publishing their findings, is utterly immaterial. Irey freely admits that he was disposed to believe the multitude of earlier reports, by the graphics software geeks, that the file was a forgery, and decided to check the typography too. He found anomalies, which supported that theory, and published them. Had he not found any, we would never had heard of the guy; because consistent typography would in no way impeach the existing theories of graphic manipulation.

      Woodman is trying to have it both ways. He claims to be a TEA Party conservative, who is no fan of BHO, which is supposed to lend credence to his counterintuitive findings; yet we are asked to believe that he approached the tedious task he set out for himself, without the slightest bias or preconceived notion regarding the authenticity of BHO’s BC. Why that improbable posture is so important to him, I cannot fathom. It seems rather obvious to me that at least at some point in his Herculean task, of discrediting the findings of a couple of dozen other investigators, many of whom certainly had, at the very least, the candlepower and expertise equivalent to his, he had to be rooting for the authenticity of the document. Otherwise, his project would have been a failure, his book never written, and we would never have heard of him either. From that point forward, his bias was no different than Irey’s.

      Thus, Irey was looking for hidden flaws in the document, and Woodman was looking for hidden flaws in the analysis of others; both were hoping to find them. Personally, I cannot find fault with either man’s motive; I am only interested in their findings. Neither of their conclusions are of much value to me; because I find them to be based on false premises. Irey seems to think his analysis supports the notion that the PDF was created with a graphics program, and Woodman seems to think he has debunked the notion of a forgery.

      They are both wrong. I think Woodman may be a little sensitive regarding Irey, because he knows that his explanation for the typography anomalies is the weakest part of his book. Did you see Irey’s newest input yesterday?

      Keeping in mind my hypothesis that the mischief was done before the document the WH scanned ever left Hawaii, doesn’t his data strongly suggest a cut & paste job? I’ll grant that the new document he has analyzed is at least one and probably two generations fresher, so there is much less distortion, yet his comment regarding how scanner distortion should be uniform, and have similar effects document wide, has a ring of truth for me. I will acknowledge that some of the slight anomalies between letters on the BHO BC could be explained by the creases in the paper Woodman has identified; but I fail to see how they, or anything else, could account for the differing type size (e.g. the ‘n’) or the changing oblique angles on some horizontal components of the letters (e.g. the ‘e’).

      What does this do to your own suggestion that this is actually his original birth record; but is unauthentic because it should have been sealed, even to BHO, and a new record showing his adoption would have replaced it? Your teases regarding unreleased documents are intriguing. Are you suggesting that during his world cruise, about the time he reached the age of majority, he may have made an affirmative act of swearing allegiance to either Indonesia or Kenya, for the purposes of obtaining a passport that would allow him to easily enter Pakistan with his boyfriend?

      And then, perhaps actually became legally naturalized in order to get his law license and/or enter Illinois politics? Talk about a BIG skeleton! Perhaps this might better explain why he lost his law license over concealing his name change? Are you seriously going to make me wait until March? You can’t be that sadistic… put ‘dave@’ in front of my domain name. I need some private words with you. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        Well, I can’t say much, but I will say this:

        It sounds like you have a very good understanding of my theory.

      • 🙂

        Go read the comment section of the WND article I posted above. Start at 2:07 AM yesterday and you will find a thread with discussion between Irey and Woodman.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        Oh, and in response to some of your other questions, I personally believe someone “messed with” the long form. Their purpose? To screw with “birthers” and skeptics. By ultimately releasing the document like they did on the web, they killed two birds with one stone:

        1. Denigration of the “birther” movement
        2. Keeping the “birther” movement somewhat alive on purpose for a political agenda.

        They want the focus to be on the birth place instead of allegiance issues. Unfortunately, many “birthers,” unsafely assume this must mean the two citizen parents issue. This is not necessarily the case.
        Also, it is possible if someone like Taitz actually had the chance to see the original long form, she would indeed see the ORIGINAL long form. The White House covered its bases.

        Dr. Polland actually did a youtube analysis on some of the issues I’ve been bringing up on the long form. He wanted to show how many of the “experts” at WND were somewhat inaccurate with some of their analyses and how someone could have “messed with” the document. I believe he deleted his video a day or two after putting it up. If I remember correctly, the primary issue he went over was the typography. I think Dr. Polland knows a lot more than he’s been letting on.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        I read the comments. Irey gave me a chuckle by hinting at knowing about a key piece of evidence he hasn’t revealed yet. To be completely honest, I think the anti-birthers are scared of Irey…and Mr. Woodman is scared of him too.

      • John Woodman says:

        > It seems rather obvious to me that at least at
        > some point in his Herculean task, of discrediting
        > the findings of a couple of dozen other investigators,
        > many of whom certainly had, at the very least, the
        > candlepower and expertise equivalent to his, he had
        > to be rooting for the authenticity of the document.
        > Otherwise, his project would have been a failure,
        > his book never written, and we would never have
        > heard of him either.

        Dave: I’d have to say you’re simply incorrect about that. I approached the question as a mystery. If I had found differently, the book would’ve still been written, and in fact I would be very famous by now as WND would’ve picked me up as an expert, and I would’ve already sold a lot of books. Farah & Corsi are people who know how to sell books. They’ve sold literally MILLIONS of them to date.

        Finding no credible evidence for forgery, as far as I see, was NOT the best outcome for me personally. But it was a mystery, so I published what I discovered, which was still quite a bit.

        As for the slanted e, that’s because it’s on a left-downward curve that Corsi denies exists — yet it clearly does. The e is wider because it’s in the section of the ripple zone that makes things wider. The n’s you refer to are only a single pixel different in the PDF, and they’re the most variant examples we have out of 11 different n’s. I could still add them to my “maybe” list, but it’s still a small list, and an iffy one. There’s certainly nothing in there, as far as I can see, that constitutes the “proof of fraud” that Irey claims.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        “I think Woodman may be a little sensitive regarding Irey, because he knows that his explanation for the typography anomalies is the weakest part of his book.”

        I tend to agree.

  • Trial says:

    Chester is a great guy. I’ve learned so very much from him!

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    From Dr. Conspiracy on the WND page (comment 11 hours ago):

    “Mr. Irey went into his original analysis, and this one, with the firm certainty that the document was a fake. Is there any surprise that he found what he was sure he would find? His bias disqualifies him, and blanking out all the text makes it impossible to check behind him.

    A worthless article.”

    Sounds familiar…

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    Also, it looks like Mr. Woodman may have caught Corsi in a “lie.” I’m still not sure how that “lie” proves the long form is legit, but Woodman is full of glee.

    Still, I think my theory is getting more and more evidence to back it up every day. From what I’ve seen Taitz write recently, I believe she may have been given the heads up and may also finally be agreeing with the theory.
    Who knows.

    • I don’t know if ‘lie’ is the right word; but he sure exploded a significant component of his forgery narrative. 🙂

      More with the teasing… where must I look for Taitz recent remarks? And, how does one go about getting on the ‘heads up’ list?

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        Taitz met with Rick Perry and his wife and discussed the SSN. Taitz is now meeting with a Congressional attorney.

      • Got it. I have been so busy and carrying on several conversations (different subjects) elsewhere, that I have forgotten to check that site for a few days. 🙂

        That was my guess for the reason to delay until Spring; but I am not sure it is all that wise. Screwing up the Dem’s Primaries might be doing them a favor, for they would just ‘draft’ Hilary or someone at their convention. Most Americans don’t pay attention to electoral politics until after Labor Day anyway. Meanwhile, this guy is destroying us… and I have no confidence that the GOP won’t nominate another Progressive Lite RINO anyway. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    Uh-oh. Looks like the recent “BC” sent to WND was a forgery:

    Also, it was also revealed a Hawaii employee from the records office stated “African” would never have been written on a BC in 1961.

    My guess is these two issues do not involve a conspiracy, but instead, the HDOH/Hawaii offices just don’t care about Hawaii statutes. On the other hand, this could also mean Obama’s BC is definitely a forgery and WND was sent a fake BC to try and screw them over. I guess it could go either way.

    • I am not buying most of his analysis. I think the last two digits are 15. I think the vertical line on the leading edge of the 6, the ‘cross bar’ (which isn’t straight) that makes the second 1 look like a 4, and the splotchy mess that makes the 5 look like a 3 are extraneous artifacts akin to the dots before the 6 and after the 5. There is also an excess vertical mark over the second 1, which extends below the line (the numbers are remarkably well aligned). The 9s look very much like inverted 6s, as they probably should. Given the nature of the bleed-through and filtering required to display it, I have no difficulty believing the same stamp made both numbers, and his font change hypothesis fails.

      Of course, WND knows the number, and there is little reason now to conceal it. Let’s see what they do with the speculation. I doubt that the security paper used 16 years ago could completely block the laser light of a scanner. I am not even going to get into the seal issue.

      While I certainly agree that the ‘African’ race issue is suspicious, and I haven’t bought it from day one, the remarks of a current employee of the hospital mean little; unless she knows for a fact that they never filled out a form for Obama, and that was her way of hinting at it. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        I think WND has had certain information all along that they just haven’t released. It kind of makes me upset because it’s as if WND and some certain core members of the “birther” movement are waiting for some kind of magical time period, a time to release documents and information that would prove most damaging. I’m sure we can agree it would probably be better to see Obama out of the White House rather soon than later. Me thinks they want to play to the Republican base. Just my guess.

        You made me really curious about the number now. At first, I didn’t really care tbch. WND could have a very interesting article in the future.

      • I doubt they have had a true smoking gun “all along.” Yes, they do appear to dribble out data to keep their cottage industry active; but they are investigative journalists at heart and would want to nail down multiple sources, documentation, etc. on much of it before reporting on it. Sitting on a big story for partisan advantage, risks that someone else will break it and steal the thunder. Then again, Corsi admits to a tactical decision to not change the name of his book and/or reveal his tip, regarding the insertion of a forged original into the DHOH three weeks before Apr. 27th, which he claims to have e-mails to document. He claims they wanted BHO to make the mistake of releasing it, because up to that point, he could always claim he had nothing personally to do with his supporters creating, or his campaign workers claiming the authenticity of, the phony COLB.

        Yes, I will be pissed if anyone is sitting on a smoking gun that would guarantee his immediate removal from office; but I suppose if the politicians doing so realize that it will reverse all the damage he has already done, or might do, they are going to make best advantage of it politically, and it is pointless to waste time lamenting the inevitable spots on the leopard. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        Let me clarify. I don’t believe they have a “smoking gun,” I believe they have the information pointing to the “smoking gun.” =O

        “Then again, Corsi admits to a tactical decision to not change the name of his book and/or reveal his tip, regarding the insertion of a forged original into the DHOH three weeks before Apr. 27th, which he claims to have e-mails to document.”

        I called him out on this at one time, and he lied about it. I can’t get into specifics here, but his story has a whole lot of holes.

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    I found some medicine for you Dave:

    • OK, I took my meds; both segments. I usually don’t pay much attention to Alex Jones; but that was a great interview. A lot of things to make one go, “Hmmm…” on this topic and others. I had never heard of his guest. Do you have any feel for his credibility? I like investigative reporters who actually go dig stuff up in the field.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        Madsen? I believe he’s the guy who’s promoting the “Obama was a CIA agent” and “Obama got C’s in college” conspiracies. I honestly haven’t done much research on either issue. He has said, however, he sent the BC to investigative agencies all around the world and most of them said the BC was a fraud.

        I just found this video particularly interesting. It makes me want to see the college records even more.

  • Chester A. Arthur says:


    I see that you are still visiting Woodman’s site.


    Don’t you feel dirty afterwards? With just a cursory glance the hypocrisy there was vomit inducing. Now I feel like I need to take some kind of medicine! Where’s my Obot spray?

    • Yeah, the waters thereabouts have become rather fetid… and boring. Currently, I am enjoying doing battle elsewhere, with some rabid fundamentalist Christians, who misunderstand the principle of federalism, and demand that their Representatives violate their oaths to support and defend our Constitution, by enacting legislation on matters their enumerated powers do not place within their purview.

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        Are they all Republicans?

        Lately, I’ve been distancing myself from the Republican party. I consider myself to be a libertarian. A major problem I had in the Republican party was with “rabid fundamentalist Christians” trying to make laws based on religion instead of the Constitution. How can you speak out against Sharia law then try to enforce your own religious law?

        It sounds like you’re dealing with something similar.

        Ron Paul 2012.

      • Precisely:

        Pick a new persona, sign up, and join me. We could even use the PM feature for back channel communications. 🙂

      • Chester A. Arthur says:

        A discussion combining religion and politics…um, I think I’ll step out of this one.

        Besides, some of those people seem to be impossible to get along with. I saw how they were twisting your words on there.

        When it comes to politics and religion, there usually is one characteristic that is severely lacking- empathy. To put it another way, people fail to see religion and politics as a chess game. It is essential for players to “flip the chessboard over.” “Birthers” are “definitely right,” anti-birthers are “definitely right.” Conservatives are “definitely right,” liberals are “definitely right.”

        What ever happened to having an objective mind? Have they gone extinct?

      • Well put. At least on the endangered species list.

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    Interesting read from Post and E-mail:

    “Before we talked to Horiuchi, Jesse Koike, the point person for anyone who questions these things, came over and I questioned why I couldn’t get the long form, said, “That is the long form,” and I said, “Well, if that’s the long form, what do you call this?” and I showed him Obama’s, the forgery. And I said, “If you’re president of the United States, you can have a copy of the long form, but the rest of us have to pound sand.”

    So then he said, “There was a court order so that would be released.”

    Like I keep saying, my theory is looking better and better everyday!

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    That one statement is VERY important:

    “There was a court order so that would be released.”

    Where is this court order?

    The only reason Obama would need a court order is if his long form was SEALED.


  • Trial says:

    “Talk-radio host and former Nixon White House operative G. Gordon Liddy told WND that one of his trusted informants in Hawaii reported to him that while the document was forged recently, there may have been tampering with official Obama birth records as far back as 1978.”

    1978? I wonder why…

  • I finally got around to starting my own blog.

    At the moment, I’m having a discussion with Dean Haskins.

  • John Woodman says:


    I challenged Paul Irey to publicly debate the evidence regarding the fonts, in the largest possible venue.

    Mr. Irey still believes the birth certificate is a fraud, but refuses to debate.

  • Wow! watch this video:

    This kid’s either got a huge pair or a small brain… or perhaps both… In any case, I have to salute his tenacity and patriotism, however ill-conceived his action plan. Simper Fi, son. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Uh-oh, a “birther” got curious about me and went scouring through websites online to see what I’ve written in the past!

    The “birthers” have discovered my deep, dark secrets:
    I am an Obot without any critical thinking skills, I am an idiot, I am an ass, I don’t read for comprehension, and I’m just plain wrong about everything.

    They’re obviously right, because, well, THEY THINK SO! Best evidence I’ve ever seen presented.

    Ahhhhh, I so love “birthers.”

    Ironically, they never stated what I really am- argumentative. I’m generally okay with that label.

  • Hey Chesty! I left the following comment on your “From the Past to the Present” post on your SkepticismRocks blog. It never showed up, but it won’t allow me to repost it. Is it hung up in moderation for some reason?

    A few thoughts:

    There would be no reason to ever put a copy of the short form in the HDHS vault, because it is generated from digital data within their database, not a document. Digitizing data into a database is supposed to allow one to reduce paper storage requirements, not increase it.

    The Governor’s office may have objected to the suggestion that she decided to seal the documents in the vault, because they already were sealed there, and had been since the adoption. The suggestion that they were being treated differently because he was an important politician, may have been floated to explain why just anybody in the department couldn’t go look at it for themselves. I suspect the same problem may have confronted and surprised the new Governor, when he initially went looking.

    A court order sealing such records might explain the hospital’s refusal to discuss their records, if he was in fact born there. It would also explain why they removed his letter from their wall, off their website, and out of their promotional material, after being advised that they might be putting themselves in legal jeopardy.

    When I first noted Lingle’s construct of ‘birth records’ instead of BC, it only confirmed for me the possibility that the birth was reported by the grandparents. The form used would be a ‘birth record’ but not a BC. I note that this could still be the case, and that Corsi could be right that a forged long form, conforming to the erroneous data (e.g. race = African) on the forged short form PDF, was placed in the vault a few weeks before a copy of it was requested by the WH.

    The artifacts of the short form would have likely been created at the WH, when the B/W copy was made for the press, simply because both were stacked together in the copy machine’s flat bed scanner; not in Hawaii. This would not have been the case with the photograph, where the light, even if taken with the flash on a reporter’s pocket digital camera, would not have been intense enough to shine through the first and be reflected back from the second to the camera lens in any case.

    I thought I remembered that the artifacts of a second document in the PDF were of the lawyer’s letter, not the short form??? Again, either way, it could simply have been stacked documents at the WH. If they are similar, and they used a typical all-in-one printer/copier, they could have both been done more or less at the same time, without even moving the paper in the flatbed scanner.

    If the spooks were involved as early as ’78 doing favors for one of their own (Lolo and/or Dunham), all bets are off on the validity of any of the FOIA immigration data, etc. ‘birthers’ are turning up. Manufacturing false identities for themselves and turncoats given asylum alike, is their speciality; and access to the archives in HI would have been easily obtained and gone unrecorded.

    Finally, I still see no reason to abandon my theory that the birth happened in Canada. I can’t get past the interview I saw of Stanley’s best friend from high school, where she described an unexpected visit from her in the summer of ’61, with a newborn infant, who messed his diaper and Dunham panicked, appeared not to know what to do, and thrust the child to her friend to change. This does not describe a new mother competent and able enough to travel alone on long distance flights with an infant, even if they would have let her on the plane.

    More likely, she had just left the Vancouver hospital or home for wayward girls, where she had been hiding her condition from the gossips in Hawaii for the missing months from Feb. to Aug. of ’61. Her parents reporting the birth would have given him American citizenship, and their naming of Obama as the father, might have been as much for his benefit for immigration purposes, as for hers. â—„Daveâ–º

    • For some reason, the comment went to moderation. It should have been automatically accepted from you. Not sure if it was a wordpress issue or I haven’t done something correctly with my wordpress settings.

      Anyhow, your first rate comment is up on the site.


    • I’m much more interested in what the second article has to say.

      I’m not the least bit surprised Doc was able to somewhat “duplicate” the document.

      Oh, I guess this also explains why Doc has been deleting some of his previous work. I had no idea he was going to go this hardcore with the long form then give his material to WND.

      BTW, I thought he said he was going to “punk” WND? What happened with that?

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    So, I read the entire article. Basically, this is what he says:

    “You gotta believe me! At least pity me!”

    Needless to say, I had to keep myself from laughing when reading it.

  • You are such a cynic. 🙂

    Perhaps I just want to believe him… but I can’t help liking the guy. There is a certain level of naïveté, in his belief that he has done an important job, that just disarms me. 🙂

    Either I am a sucker for the homespun charm, which expresses befuddlement and indignity extremely well, or the guy is largely telling the truth as he sees it. Assuming his self-publishing story is accurate, and the anemic marketing effort supports it, it does seem unlikely that he was put up to the project by professionals.

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    I enjoyed the book at least! I thought it was well written and opened up people to more possibilities. I do think he’s been lying about a few things though, or at the very least, not telling the whole truth.

  • LOL 🙂

    …that from a guy who has at least four screen names that I know of. 😉

    I thouroughly enjoyed your slip the other day that conflated two of them. Of course, I already had you made from the beginning with that one. 😉

    I am probably the only individual you will ever encounter who NEVER tells a lie, even a little white one, or obscures his identity; because I refuse to do it. Of course, the only way I can get away with it, is that I could care less what others think of me, and I am fearless. Some find that a dangerous combination. 😉

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    You now know too much Mr. Dave!


  • Well, crap. Now I am going to have to retract one… because I have more respect for you than that latest video deserves. It was totally lame. I only watched it once; but the good Doc didn’t prove squat that I could tell. In fact, it gave me a bad case of cognative dissonance. Much more of this and I WILL be an Obot. Sheesh… I gotta go sleep on this one…

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    I had no idea what you were talking about at first. Then, I saw it. LOL. Well, it’s not surprising to me really. He’s been practically saying the “birther” canard of “everyone is in on it.” An issue I very much disagree with him on (I hope were both talking about the same individual). Personally, I don’t really care much for the long forms. I agreed with a lot of what was written in Woodman’s book. I think WND for one probably knows to a certain degree that the long form probably isn’t forged. The angle they and many “birthers” work from is used to draw attention and to take the most direct route.

    I really wish “birthers” would focus more on the AMENDED birth certificate! Oh well, if Taitz ever does get to see the long form and declares it legit, “birthers” will finally come my way. I’m longing for that day. Hey, it could still happen with a certain other document even if no one gets to see the original long form.

  • I still think the mischief resides in the DHOH vault and there is a good chance he was born in Canada:

    (note the date) Why would the hospital pull BHO’s letter down from the wall, off their website, and out of their fundraising materials, after being warned that they could be in serious legal jeopardy if it wasn’t true? After all, if it was true, they had a document showing that he didn’t mind them discussing it, so there would be absolutely no reason to refuse to answer the question.

    Yes, I notice Corsi mentions the dual citizenship issue a lot more often these days, now that his book is out.

  • Chester A. Arthur says:

    If the long form is a forgery, I think Obama’s date of birth is actually months before what’s typed on the birth certificate. The time-line has always struck me as odd.

    As for the vault, there definitely was some kind of “mischief” that happened there. I just happen to think it had to do with unsealing the records for Obama (after his special request). And finally, concerning the ominous letter, if I remember correctly, it had the same debossing for its seal going on that Miss Tickly has been writing about. Is it possible Obama was not born in an actual hospital?

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links