Main Menu

WND blocks Doc from debunking nutty article

Lord Monckton is back at WorldNetDaily with a classic example of he blind leading the blind in a rehash of a similar story from 2012. I’d like to refute the nonsense there, but WND banned me a while back.

image

The comment I couldn’t post (from the preceding image) says:

With all due respect, Monckton doesn’t have a clue what real scanning and PDF generation software does. He relies on what he is told, and the people telling him aren’t qualified. It is the blind leading the blind. The paper largely relies on the false claim that normal PDF generation software does not create multiple one-bit non-black layers. Well it does. Ask any Xerox WorkCenter 7655 machine.

This is in response to a central theme in the Monckton report (repeating over and over “I am told”) that says, among other things:

Monckton: "I am told that no optimization software generates any non-black layers of 1-bit quality, yet all of the 1-bit-quality layers in the White House document are non-black" and "Multiple layers of 1-bit quality each representing a distinct color other than black can only be created by an operator deliberately."

As readers here know, the Xerox WorkCentre 7655 that the White House owns automatically does exactly what Monckton was told optimization software can not do.

Then Monckton goes on to do some math which is both wrong, and inappropriate:

Multiple layers of 1-bit quality, no 1-bit-quality layer represents black and one 8-bit-quality color layer: 1 in 60 (combined)
Registrar’s signature-stamp on its own layer: 1 in 100 (actually impossible)
Registrar’s date-stamp on its own layer: 1 in 100 (actually impossible)
Line spacing irregularities: 1 in 10
Letter spacing irregularities: 1 in 20
White halo effect around black text: 1 in 10
Chromatic aberration absent: 1 in 100 (actually impossible)
Certificate number out of sequence: 1 in 25
Father’s birth date two years out: 1 in 40
Use of “African” against written rules: 1 in 25
Miscoding of federal statistical data: 1 in 25
Probability that all errors were inadvertent: 1 in 75 quadrillion

First, let’s correct the mistakes:

Multiple layers of 1-bit quality, no 1-bit-quality layer represents black and one 8-bit-quality color layer: Normal for Xerox machine
Registrar’s signature-stamp on its own layer: Always happens with Xerox
Registrar’s date-stamp on its own layer: Always happens with Xerox
Line spacing irregularities: Why is this unusual?
Letter spacing irregularities: Why is this unusual?
White halo effect around black text: Always happens with Xerox
Chromatic aberration absent: Normal for Xerox
Certificate number out of sequence: Not out of sequence
Father’s birth date two years out: Matches other documents
Use of “African” against written rules: No such rule
Miscoding of federal statistical data: No such code applicable

The a priori statistical fallacy involved (reference, see Note 4) is to conclude that something that that has already happened is improbable. He might just as well have argued that the name Barack is very unusual, and the name Obama is also unusual, and that only a relatively small number of babies were born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, and then conclude that someone named “Barack Obama” being born on August 4, 1961 in Hawaii was very unlikely.

, , ,

42 Responses to WND blocks Doc from debunking nutty article

  1. avatar
    bob March 10, 2015 at 3:20 pm #

    According to Monckton, the odds of Obama’s birth certificate being a forgery have dropped a thousand fold in the last three years!

  2. avatar
    Steve March 10, 2015 at 5:30 pm #

    Monckton’s very name and physical appearance scream “not to be taken seriously.”

  3. avatar
    wrecking ball March 10, 2015 at 5:39 pm #

    Steve:
    Monckton’s very name and physical appearance scream “not to be taken seriously.”

    “….commonly known as the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Peer of the Realm,…”

  4. avatar
    BJB March 10, 2015 at 7:58 pm #

    Have you been partaking of that “thick salty meat extract” Doc? Probably a favorite of most Brits…

  5. avatar
    BJB March 10, 2015 at 8:00 pm #

    Sorry for possible double post – “thick salty meat extract that comes in a bulbous jar”….matches Monckton’s eyes?

  6. avatar
    Keith March 10, 2015 at 9:14 pm #

    Monckton fancies himself as a mathematician and statistician.

    Here’s an example of his statistical prowess: The Eternity Puzzle

  7. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 10, 2015 at 9:49 pm #

    Doc,

    For completeness, I would point out that his arguments about “line and letter spacing irregularities” have particularly egregious deficiencies due to his “good” sample being torn entirely in half and a complete lack of understanding of the necessity of having a control for the “anomalies” he’s looking for. I’m not sure if there is a type of mistake that you can make on this sort of analysis that isn’t represented in Chrissy’s exegesis.

  8. avatar
    sactosintolerant March 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm #

    FYI for anyone banned from commenting on WND. They often just ban your IP and not your account.

  9. avatar
    bovril March 11, 2015 at 2:46 am #

    BJB:
    Have you been partaking of that “thick salty meat extract” Doc? Probably a favorite of most Brits…

    Since Doc’s words needed posting over there I took the liberty of posting it. I tried to include the URL but as I was posting from my phone, didn’t work for some reason

  10. avatar
    RanTalbott March 11, 2015 at 5:09 am #

    Monckton claims at the beginning of his daffydavit that:

    The information herein is based upon my own personal knowledge. If called as a witness, I could testify competently thereto.

    These claims are blatantly false: by his own admission, most of the key information is stuff he was told, and he definitely does not have any “personal knowledge” of the likelihood of the events to which he assigned probabilities. So he’s not capable of “testify[ing] competently” about his conclusions.

    Iirc, someone discussing the Zullo daffydavit said that the amount of hearsay in it meant it could be considered “perjury”. Is that actually true in principle, and does it happen in practice?

  11. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 11, 2015 at 5:35 am #

    He might just as well have argued that the name Barack is very unusual, and the name Obama is also unusual, and that only a relatively small number of babies were born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, and then conclude that someone named “Barack Obama” being born on August 4, 1961 in Hawaii was very unlikely.

    Very good analogy.

    Being mathematically challenged, especially w.r.t. probability theory, is another typical trait of a nutjob.
    (See the ID crowd who claim how “impossible” it was that life came into existence, so “God did it”.)

    There’s actually a combination of fallacies:

    1. Claiming that unrelated probabilities are the same as related probabilities (two “anomalies” on a document that are not provably related are like individual coin tosses, not like a sequence of two coin tosses).
    That’s how Monckton blows up his unrelated “1:100” probabilities to 1 in 1 zillion.

    2. Claiming that because something is mathematically very improbable, it is impossible.
    By that logic, every long sequence of coin tosses is “impossible” because its probability tends to zero as its length increases.

    3. Claiming because something is mathematically very improbable and still happened, it must have been deliberately caused, the outcome must have been controlled by someone.
    See (2). Obviously “God” or some powerful conspiracy controls the outcome of coin tosses.

    4. Claiming because something could have been the result of nefarious interference, it must have been.
    So because fixing the lottery numbers makes sense for evil conspirators (to make one of them a millionaire), lottery numbers are fixed, everywhere, every time.
    Because a forged BC could have been a conspiracy to get an ineligible guy to be elected, it must be forged.

    Well, I suppose since the chances of meeting exactly the persons I met on my way to work today and being almost run over by exactly the car and the bike that almost ran me over today multiply to at least 1 in 1 billion, somebody must be controlling my everyday life. ZOMG, I’m Truman Burbank!

  12. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 11, 2015 at 5:40 am #

    RanTalbott: Iirc, someone discussing the Zullo daffydavit said that the amount of hearsay in it meant it could be considered “perjury”. Is that actually true in principle, and does it happen in practice?

    I think the legal term is “factual mistake” – you can only commit deliberate perjury, and if you’re honestly convinced reading something on the internet makes it “personal knowledge” (because you’re Lord Monckton and a dumb nut), it’s not deliberate.

  13. avatar
    Bovril March 11, 2015 at 7:03 am #

    BJB:
    Sorry for possible double post – “thick salty meat extract that comes in a bulbous jar”….matches Monckton’s eyes?

    Well that didn’t last long before being deleted and now posts are going into moderation, it’s as if WND can’t abide factual rebuttal and dissent…surely not….. 😎

  14. avatar
    ellen March 11, 2015 at 10:27 am #

    When birther sites block us it is an indication of how desperate they are getting. It is, of course, counterproductive. In time even birthers will notice when there are only comments from one viewpoint. (But with birthers it will probably take a lot of time.)

  15. avatar
    wrecking ball March 11, 2015 at 1:24 pm #

    ellen:
    In time even birthers will notice when there are only comments from one viewpoint.

    don’t be so sure ellen.

    when we can post birthers claim our comments are because they are getting close and we’re scared. when we don’t/can’t post birthers claim it’s because …. they are getting close and we’re scared.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 11, 2015 at 1:41 pm #

    ellen:
    When birther sites block us it is an indication of how desperate they are getting. It is, of course, counterproductive. In time even birthers will notice when there are only comments from one viewpoint. (But with birthers it will probably take a lot of time.)

    No birthers aren’t even that smart. When the mods block countering views birthers claim that there isn’t many people opposing them since their view is the majority. I’ve seen it on birthers sites before.

  17. avatar
    Daniel March 11, 2015 at 2:00 pm #

    Bovril: it’s as if WND can’t abide factual rebuttal and dissent…surely not….

    WND makes it’s money off of rage mining. Anything that could possibly cool that rage with the light of reason must be suppressed.

  18. avatar
    Nathan M. Bickel March 12, 2015 at 4:54 pm #

    It appears to me that WND distinguished properly. Perhaps, their action signifies that they sensed a genuine co-conspirator enabler of the criminal ID (forgery) fraud, aka Obama.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2015 at 5:19 pm #

    You should try giving up slander for Lent. There’s still time.

    I speak frankly and do not exaggerate when I say that the birther enthusiasm for slander, especially as seen at Birther Report, appalls me, and that Pastor Bickel would be a part of it is deeply discouraging.

    See also my article: Slander.

    Nathan M. Bickel:
    It appears to me that WND distinguished properly. Perhaps, their action signifies that they sensed a genuine co-conspirator enabler of the criminal ID (forgery) fraud, aka Obama.

  20. avatar
    Daniel March 12, 2015 at 5:33 pm #

    Nathan M. Bickel: It appears to me that WND distinguished properly. Perhaps, their action signifies that they sensed a genuine co-conspirator enabler of the criminal ID (forgery) fraud, aka Obama.

    WND thanks you for continuing to support their rage-mining profits.

  21. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 12, 2015 at 5:46 pm #

    Nathan M. Bickel:
    It appears to me that WND distinguished properly. Perhaps, their action signifies that they sensed a genuine co-conspirator enabler of the criminal ID (forgery) fraud, aka Obama.

    Poor little bitter birther. Less than two more years to go, and no sign of “vindication” in sight. Hurry! Run along back to your RWNJ echo chamber! Being exposed to impartial facts could prove fatal to the likes of you!

  22. avatar
    katahdin March 12, 2015 at 6:28 pm #

    Nathan M. Bickel:
    It appears to me that WND distinguished properly. Perhaps, their action signifies that they sensed a genuine co-conspirator enabler of the criminal ID (forgery) fraud, aka Obama.

    Why are all birthers incapable of writing simple declarative sentences that make any sense at all?

  23. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett March 12, 2015 at 7:20 pm #

    rage mining and fear mining. Their ads often cater to people who think that civilization is about to collapse, and they’ll need “crisis cookers” and the like to survive.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2015 at 8:17 pm #

    I think Nathan was trying to sound erudite. What I think he meant was that WND was right to ban me because I am in agreement with Obama on this topic.

    katahdin: Why are all birthers incapable of writing simple declarative sentences that make any sense at all?

  25. avatar
    Krosis March 13, 2015 at 1:46 am #

    I think that the bad Pastor Bickel has accused the good Doctor Conspiracy of forging the birth certificate together with Obama.

  26. avatar
    Nathan M. Bickel March 13, 2015 at 10:09 am #

    Think what you may and ridicule all you care with your “birther” hackneyed slings. The issue is the criminal ID forgery fraud by the one who relies on the alias of “Barack Hussein Obama.”

    Terrible Truth Research On Aka Obama

    http://moralmatters.org/terrible-truth-research-on-aka-obama/

  27. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2015 at 10:20 am #

    Nathan M. Bickel: Think what you may and ridicule all you care with your “birther” hackneyed slings. The issue is the criminal ID forgery fraud by the one who relies on the alias of “Barack Hussein Obama.”

    Terrible Truth Research On Aka Obama

    Martha Trowbridge? Seriously? She ranks right up there with Linda Joy Adams, Nancy Ruth Owens and our boy Sven in just making stuff up. But thanks for your permission to continue ridiculing you ridiculous people.

  28. avatar
    Nathan M. Bickel March 13, 2015 at 12:01 pm #

    Noise –

    Ridicule replies get old. Making assertions without evidencing them is name-calling child’s play.

  29. avatar
    Daniel March 13, 2015 at 12:11 pm #

    Nathan M. Bickel: Ridicule replies get old

    If you don’t like being ridiculed, perhaps you should consider not being ridiculous.

  30. avatar
    Daniel March 13, 2015 at 12:12 pm #

    Nathan M. Bickel: Making assertions without evidencing them is

    …birther standard operating procedure.

    You’re a Pastor? When did Jesus repeal the “thou shalt not commit false witness” commandment? Did I miss the announcement?

  31. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 13, 2015 at 12:15 pm #

    Nathan M. Bickel: Making assertions without evidencing them is name-calling child’s play.

    —-

    Ironic words for a slanderer.

  32. avatar
    bovril March 13, 2015 at 12:22 pm #

    Nathan M. Bickel:
    Noise –

    Ridicule replies get old. Making assertions without evidencing them is name-calling child’s play.

    So, Natty by name, Nutty by nature

    How do you reconcile minor matters such as the 2 individual Notifications in Lieu that were requested and received by two separate Republican SOS’s, neither friends or supporters of Obama.

    I’m sure you remember these, where two senior lawyers not only requested and received confirmation of the facts of Obama’s birth but also legally and constitutionally binding and sufficient documents confirming that ALL of the details in the BC were full and accurate.

    You know, signed, sealed and regarded in every court in the USA as prima facie evidence and accurate statement of facts.

    Those documents ..?

  33. avatar
    Crustacean March 13, 2015 at 12:28 pm #

    You mean, assertions like saying Barack Obama has committed criminal ID forgery fraud and uses an alias, despite all legitimate evidence being to the contrary? What does Jesus say about bearing false witness, Pastor Bickel? (hint: Matthew 19:18)

    And you think you’re going to heaven some day. Well, have I got news for you…

    Nathan M. Bickel: Making assertions without evidencing them is name-calling child’s play.

  34. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2015 at 1:28 pm #

    Nathan M. Bickel:
    Noise –

    Ridicule replies get old. Making assertions without evidencing them is name-calling child’s play.

    You spouting nonsense gets old. That’s funny that you talk about making assertions without evidencing them because that’s exactly what Martha Trowbridge does and you support that. I have yet to ever see Martha show any evidence to support her stories.

    You have yet to present any evidence you’re a christian.

  35. avatar
    faceman March 14, 2015 at 6:14 am #

    Nathan M. Bickel: Noise –Ridicule replies get old. Making assertions without evidencing them is name-calling child’s play.

    “without evidencing them”? That right there is ridiculous. Nothing irritates me more than someone trying to sound smarter than he is by using such language. Try “without providing any evidence” next time.

  36. avatar
    Arthur March 14, 2015 at 7:58 pm #

    Not only is the person above unable to distinguish between the Congressional Record and the Journals of the Continental Congress, he doesn’t know where to properly post links and isn’t man enough to acknowledge his mistakes.

  37. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 14, 2015 at 8:01 pm #

    Let’s go back a few years to 2009.

    dr.conspiracy: ‘I don’t see how at any time you can literally translate the French “les naturels ou indigenes to natural born citizens.

    The Founders translated “les sujets naturels” to “natural born subjects”. In 1781.

    Article III http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28jc0216%29%29

    A.P. Morse and Justice Daniel did and others. Do I have to list all of them.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2015 at 8:34 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Let’s go back a few years to 2009.

    dr.conspiracy: ‘I don’t see how at any time you can literally translate the French “les naturels ou indigenes to natural born citizens.

    The Founders translated“les sujets naturels” to “natural born subjects”. In 1781.

    Article III http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28jc0216%29%29

    A.P. Morse and Justice Daniel did and others. Do I have to list all of them.

    Didn’t you birthers argue that Natural born subjects and natural born citizen isn’t the same thing and we didn’t follow english common law?

  39. avatar
    Dave B. March 15, 2015 at 1:56 pm #

    That’s a a bit appley-orangey, isn’t it?

    ObligedFriend:
    Let’s go back a few years to 2009.

    dr.conspiracy: ‘I don’t see how at any time you can literally translate the French “les naturels ou indigenes to natural born citizens.

    The Founders translated“les sujets naturels” to “natural born subjects”. In 1781.

  40. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 15, 2015 at 10:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    BR got blocked too:

    http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/attorney-responds-to-harvard-law-review.html#IDComment957266117

    LOL! And his reaction couldn’t be any more predictable.