Main Menu

Conspiracy v. accident

Things are going along just fine and then there is a crisis, a financial bubble bursts, unemployment surges, terrorists blow up something. We live in a world saturated with information and events, and it is only natural to try to make sense of them. One writer on conspiracy theories described them as a “poor man’s sociology,” an unscientific attempt to explain things.

The two large competing popular views of why events bad happen are that events are the result of an unseen malevolent hand engaged in a conspiracy, and the other is that things are more or less accidents and screw-ups (the Forrest Gump “**IT” happens view). Neither view is correct, a priori. Indeed both could be called a poor man’s sociology (or whatever scientific discipline one wants to apply). I do no agree that there are only these two alternatives. I believe that there are predictable natural processes too.

While there is serious debunking of the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory, and the 9/11 Twin Towers controlled demolition theory, much of what appears for debunking is begging question by saying things like, “the government can’t keep a secret,” or to attack the sanity of the one presenting the theory. I prefer to limit my own application of ridicule to conspiracy theories to the really silly ones, like the guy who says that teen aged Obama teleported to a base on Mars.

Certainly in the Obama Conspiracy debunking process, we do invoke accident, such things as part of a date missing from a selective service registration, or a publicist client brochure saying Obama was born in Kenya. But invocation of an accident is not enough. It should be argued that the accident is plausible: in the case of the date stamp finding other date stamps with parts missing, and in the case of the brochure obtaining the testimony of the one who wrote it. Birthers say that the oddities in Obama’s story are so numerous as to be implausible as accidents; however, much of what birthers include in that list of oddities turn out not to be odd. One must also take into account  that massive amounts of material were sifted to come up with that list.

One of my preferred techniques is to find internal inconsistencies in the conspiracist narrative.  An example is a birther narrative that explains artifacts in Obama’s birth certificate PDF to an inept forger, while at the same time the birther narrative says Obama was out into office by the CIA who has some of the best forgers in the world. Another basic technique is to demonstrate that birther premises are false, such as their premise that no one used the phrase African American in 1961 or there was a travel ban to Pakistan in place for Americans in 1981 when Obama traveled there. Contemporary government documents blow apart both those stories.

Finally, I expect someone putting forward a conspiracy theory to offer some tangible evidence beyond a coincidence. Birthers tried that with Obama’s birth certificate, but that all fell apart under close scrutiny. If that evidence is testimony, then I expect some explanation of how the witness knows what he claims (this is where the Tim Adams story fell down), or if it is expert testimony, then I expect the witness to be an actual expert.

Insofar as Obama birthplace conspiracy theories, I think the skeptics have done a solid debunking job, and have not relied simply on skepticism and ridicule.

, , , , ,

23 Responses to Conspiracy v. accident

  1. avatar
    Smirk 4 Food November 24, 2015 at 12:51 pm #

    Excellent work, agent DC-31. Mr. Soros will wire your bonus to The Caymans tomorrow..

  2. avatar
    chancery November 24, 2015 at 8:07 pm #

    ” Obama was out into office”

    I think you mean “put.”

  3. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 25, 2015 at 1:08 am #

    There seems to be an implicit point that skeptics haven’t done a solid debunking job with, for instance, 9/11 truthers and moon landing deniers, something I strongly disagree with. The 9/11 and moon landing debunkers have, for the most part, left the field, but that doesn’t mean that there is any more legitimacy to idiots that don’t think we landed on the moon than there is to idiots who think President Obama’s birth certificate (either one) is “forged”.

    There is a much larger chance, in my opinion, that Luigi Apuzzo will convince the SCOTUS to adopt his “definition” from Minor than Dylan Avery (maker of Loose Change) will win his fight against the laws of physics regarding the “controlled demolition” of the World Trade Center. Conspiracists who make baseless, heinous accusations against the sitting President, whether that President is named “Bush” or “Obama” deserve nothing more than skepticism and ridicule. If someone chooses to repeat long standing debunking, that’s fine, but “you’re an idiot” is also a perfectly justified response to any birther, truther or loony you might run across. They’ve all abused any “benefit of the doubt” they may have once deserved. The only difference between the anti-birther movement and the anti-truther movement is in the details, not the legitimacy of the debunking.

    Doc C: Insofar as Obama birthplace conspiracy theories, I think the skeptics have done a solid debunking job, and have not relied simply on skepticism and ridicule.

  4. avatar
    Pastor Charmley November 25, 2015 at 6:33 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    There seems to be an implicit point that skeptics haven’t done a solid debunking job with, for instance, 9/11 truthers and moon landing deniers, something I strongly disagree with.

    I think that the implication is accidental. Given some of the books Doc has recommended, he knows that the Moon Landing and 9/11 conspiracies have been properly debunked.

  5. avatar
    CRJ November 25, 2015 at 10:36 am #

    @Smirk 4 Food [ Bonus to Caymans] absolutely a treasure of joy 😂

    @Doc [ Insofar as Obama birthplace conspiracy theories, I think the skeptics have done a solid debunking job, and have not relied simply on skepticism and ridicule]

    When “Debunkers” must be employed there must remain an element of non-transparency unexplained.

    Obama certainly may have his reasons for sealing his academic records for instance, but in general it serves no purpose in a promise of Transparency broken with even his first official act or Claim of [Executive Privilege], rather than or in contrast to [Equality of privilege].
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304500/posts

    Obama’s first act as President EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 banning release of any of his records

    To have to Rely on Debunkers and Explanations of defense, it seems to me nixing a triangular test of truth to offer proof of some fact or presumption is a sabatoge of self determination.

    Obama’s sealing so many Records of his, which could help triangulate the Truth, has created the need to employ Debunkers of the gaps he himself created .

    Obama’s own bastion of hope rested in or was rooted in [the hope of America for proof of pigmentation in the Presidency] which is not rooted in Principle and pales in the determination of Eligibility.

    The qualification of the Office of President, the same as the right to vote, has no regard to race, color, gender, or prior servitude.

    It is therefore a shallow hope to rest laurels on levels of pigmentation over Principle.

    The shadows created by [not] releasing a long form birth certificate until 2011 cannot be denide by Debunkers as created by Obama. Who else does the decision rest in? Mr. Trump? Surely not the case.

    As perfectly illustrated as sabatoging your own determination, we must acknowledge the truth in Dr. Carson’s challenge OBAMA’s College Transcripts if Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard are closed by Obama.

    No one else’s decision. The created work again to employ Debunkers theories and justifications surrounding only Obama’s own decisions.

    The narrative taken as a whole produces a posture of the Love of Conspiracy rather then the Love of Truth.

    Principally the Love of Conspiracy is perpetrated by the lovers of Chaos over Order and are rooted in deception over revelation- authored by the devil in the face of Diety.

    What chances are there that won’t be uncovered? About the same that the identity of Deep Throat would never be known. He was brought to light in death; however, Progressives heralded him a Standard in Principle because it was a Republican in Nixon they saw as deserving the devils Gate.

    In the secrets of pigmentation the progressives hide their own racism by pouncing on the colors as reason for anything Privelege. This is the testimony of saddness for Principle held in Justice for All. An Equality of Standard should not stand in the shadow of “standing in line” as if your next because of an outside characteristic of your color or sex.

    The glass ceilings are wonderfully broken and celebrated on merit and an acknowlegement of Character which shines from within.

    There is nothing I quite admire more than a man or woman of great character that is able to Stand all the Tests .. All the Trials that lead to the deserved Reward.

    Cheating that is an insult to my Admiration. I fight for that.

  6. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 25, 2015 at 12:55 pm #

    I think the implication was referring to the current state of debunking of the various conspiracies (the debunkers say their piece and move on, while the whackos cling to their hateful lies and willful ignorance and say they must be right because all of the substantive debunkers have stepped up to refute the 245,618,915th time that they repeated their favorite lie), and my point was that neither birthers nor truthers nor looneys deserve anything more than “you are a dishonest idiot”. Case in point would be the word salad from Mr. Judy above. Any time spent by any person on that drivel is completely wasted—not that I have anything against wasting time for personal entertainment (or the entertainment of others), but there is no substantive purpose in responding to CRJ or other birthers—as it is ineffectual. Not to mention that most people will find it completely unintelligible gibberish.

    Pastor Charmley: I think that the implication is accidental. Given some of the books Doc has recommended, he knows that the Moon Landing and 9/11 conspiracies have been properly debunked.

  7. avatar
    Keith November 25, 2015 at 1:08 pm #

    CRJ:
    @Smirk 4 Food [ Bonus to Caymans] absolutely a treasure of joy

    @Doc [ Insofar as Obama birthplace conspiracy theories, I think the skeptics have done a solid debunking job, and have not relied simply on skepticism and ridicule]

    When “Debunkers” must be employed there must remain an element of non-transparency unexplained.

    Not necessarily true. Most ‘things’ are just poorly misunderstood and that is not the fault of the ‘thing’ but the fault of the one who misunderstands. There are lots of ‘old wives tales’ that are wrong and should be debunked – but it has nothing to do with ‘non-transparency’.

    Obama certainly may have his reasons for sealing his academic records for instance, but in general it serves no purpose in a promise of Transparency broken with even his first official act or Claim of [Executive Privilege], rather than or in contrast to [Equality of privilege].
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304500/posts

    For the umpteenth time – Obama did NOT seal his academic records.

    Obama’s first act as President EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 banning release of any of his records

    For the umpteenth time – EO13489 did NOT seal any records created BEFORE Obama took office. It placed controls on PRESIDENTIAL records – that is records created during his Administration that are part and partial of doing the job – and in the process it REMOVED CONTROLS on classes of records that his predecessor, G. Bush, had sealed.

    To have to Rely on Debunkers and Explanations of defense, it seems to me nixing a triangular test of truth to offer proof of some fact or presumption is a sabatoge of self determination.

    Obama’s sealing so many Records of his, which could help triangulate the Truth, has created the need to employ Debunkers of the gaps he himself created .

    See here is a self-referential example: this very debunking I am engaged in is made necessary not by ‘non-transparency’ – it is made ‘necessary’ by YOUR INSISTENCE ON PRESSING AN AGENDA BASED ON LIES AND INNUENDO.

    Lies need to be countered with truth, it has nothing to do with ‘non-transparency’.

    Obama’s own bastion of hope rested in or was rooted in [the hope of America for proof of pigmentation in the Presidency] which is not rooted in Principle and pales in the determination of Eligibility.

    The qualification of the Office of President, the same as the right to vote, has no regard to race, color, gender, or prior servitude.

    It is therefore a shallow hope to rest laurels on levels of pigmentation over Principle.

    The shadows created by [not] releasing a long form birth certificate until 2011 cannot be denide by Debunkers as created by Obama. Who else does the decision rest in? Mr. Trump? Surely not the case.

    Resorting to a racist argument is the best you’ve got? Really? I guess that explains you inability to think.

    As perfectly illustrated as sabatoging your own determination, we must acknowledge the truth in Dr. Carson’s challenge OBAMA’s College Transcripts if Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard are closed by Obama.

    Wait, Obama is going to close Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard now? Does your descent into stupid know no bottom?

    No one else’s decision. The created work again to employ Debunkers theories and justifications surrounding only Obama’s own decisions.

    The narrative taken as a whole produces a posture of the Love of Conspiracy rather then the Love of Truth.

    Principally the Love of Conspiracy is perpetrated by the lovers of Chaos over Order and are rooted in deception over revelation- authored by the devil in the face of Diety.

    What you seem to be saying that you are making a case that you should be ‘raised’ to the office of Satan’s right hand man. Is that right?

    I don’t think I’ll stoop to any more comment on the rest of you festering pool of sewage you consider to be conversation or debate or what ever you think you are doing here.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2015 at 1:36 pm #

    I would agree that one need not continually engage the proponents of crackpot theories after there has been a rigorous debunking. One need only point to the work that has been done.

    What I am calling for is a rigorous debunking at least once, and in the cases where a rigorous debunking has not been accomplished, labeling someone a “crackpot” is not an adequate response. I would say that the more useful question is “what is the evidence for the claim?” rather than “how unthinkable is the claim?”

    It is especially important not to dismiss, out of hand, personal testimony. Do we believe Betty and Barney Hill–Monica Lewinsky?

    Slartibartfast: and my point was that neither birthers nor truthers nor looneys deserve anything more than “you are a dishonest idiot”.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2015 at 1:49 pm #

    I think it would be a good exercise for you to debunk the statement below. Report back on what you find.

    CRJ: Obama’s first act as President EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 banning release of any of his records

  10. avatar
    bob November 25, 2015 at 1:54 pm #

    CRJ:
    As perfectly illustrated as sabatoging your own determination, we must acknowledge the truth in Dr. Carson’s challenge OBAMA’s College Transcripts if Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard are closed by Obama.

    Judy lies yet again: Federal law keeps private ALL college records. Everybody’s.

    Which includes both Carson and President Obama.

    It even protects Cody Judy’s records at Utah State University; how someone who so abuses the English language received a degree is a mystery.

  11. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 25, 2015 at 2:42 pm #

    The “controlled demolition” theory (or any 9/11 theory hypothesizing that the events in lower Manhattan that morning were not reasonable results of airplanes hitting buildings) have been completely debunked and most, in fact, are the next best thing to physically impossible given the data. I know this because I’ve done it myself and read the debunking of others as well.

    Should I be asked to do any more than call a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (or Pilots for 9/11 Truth) a dishonest idiot? I can certainly support that statement, so it isn’t libel, but the burden of proof, in my opinion, is on the dishonest idiots to prove that this isn’t another of their baseless accusations.

    We’ve got pictures of where we parked on the moon and the Mythbusters pretty thoroughly debunked the rest of the moon hoax conspiracy.

    That didn’t stop Jet Wintzer (aka the Paraclete and poker-playing ex-birther Leo Donofrio) from making up a new crackpot theory (about sounds on the NASA videos), taking a few retreads of long-debunked fallacies from people with no understanding of physics and making Moon Hoax Now. On his trailer (which I can’t find anymore), I had several of about 50-100 comments and, after the movie came out, gave a brief scientific criticism (not a thorough debunking) to which Leo never responded (that I am aware of).

    The YouTube thread that I linked has nearly 2,000 comments dating from June 14, 2015 (when it was posted) to 5 hours ago. A cursory look didn’t reveal any substantive debunking. If I call Leo’s work “unscientific, willfully ignorant and dishonest idiocy” don’t you think that the only burden should be on Leo to prove that I’m wrong? After all, I’m only holding him to the standard that every birther requires of President Obama.

    Anyway, thanks for the article Doc—it’s spurred some interesting thoughts and discussion. I’m very curious to know how you see the situation regarding Leo’s movie—it has not-yet debunked claims regarding a thoroughly debunked theory made by someone who’s lack of credibility is well-documented in the archives of this site. Now you have another person who also has a long history on this site saying that Leo’s moon hoax crap is every bit as bad as his Vattel crap. So let me twist your question and aim it back at you: Do you believe it is necessary to get more information or do you believe me (or the Paraclete) at our word?

    p.s. I’m taking a little bit of a “devil’s advocate” position because I want to explore it, but it feels right intuitively.

    Note: I didn’t answer your question because I don’t know who Betty and Barney Hill are and don’t know what you think is in dispute regarding Ms. Lewinsky. I see that as an egregious attempt by the Republicans to make a mountain out of a molehill (presumably to distract from the Himalayas in their back yard), a pattern that has been repeated ad nauseam since, rather than a conspiracy theory. Everyone knows he got a blowjob by now, right?

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I would agree that one need not continually engage the proponents of crackpot theories after there has been a rigorous debunking. One need only point to the work that has been done.

    What I am calling for is a rigorous debunking at least once, and in the cases where a rigorous debunking has not been accomplished, labeling someone a “crackpot” is not an adequate response. I would say that the more useful question is “what is the evidence for the claim?” rather than “how unthinkable is the claim?”

    It is especially important not to dismiss, out of hand, personal testimony. Do we believe Betty and Barney Hill–Monica Lewinsky?

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2015 at 2:52 pm #

    Perhaps I should be more direct:

    I think that the controlled demolition theories of the WTC collapse have been rigorously debunked, and the same for the moon landing hoax.

    Betty and Barney Hill were two of the most prominent “UFO abductees.” I picked that as an example of eye-witness testimony that cannot, in principle, be completely debunked but might be dismissed out of hand as crazy. Monica Lewinsky is an example of someone whose story might have been dismissed out of hand as crazy, only it turned out to be true.

    Slartibartfast: Note: I didn’t answer your question because I don’t know who Betty and Barney Hill are and don’t know what you think is in dispute regarding Ms. Lewinsky.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2015 at 3:05 pm #

    I haven’t see Leo’s movie, but I know the premise. While his particular evidence may not have been debunked, I believe that the moon landing is sufficiently well-established to say it’s wrong. I would not argue that Leo’s theory is crackpot BECAUSE other moon landing evidence has fallen apart, nor because he calls himself funny names. I would argue that the landing is well established and that Leo isn’t qualified as an expert.

    Slartibartfast: Do you believe it is necessary to get more information or do you believe me (or the Paraclete) at our word?

  14. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 25, 2015 at 3:32 pm #

    Fair enough (and I never thought differently), but my question about Leo still stands: do his moon hoax claims “deserve” any debunking?

    As for your point about eyewitnesses, the lesson I take from that is to never make up your mind based on only one source (or only sources that agree with your initial position). As a scientist, though, I’d generally rather have hard data than eyewitness testimony (as for example the controlled demolition theory). I’m also always trying to prove myself wrong (because that’s how science works), so I tend to look on any eyewitness skeptically until their story is supported by other evidence.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Perhaps I should be more direct:

    I think that the controlled demolition theories of the WTC collapse have been rigorously debunked, and the same for the moon landing hoax.

    Betty and Barney Hill were two of the most prominent “UFO abductees.” I picked that as an example of eye-witness testimony that cannot, in principle, be completely debunked but might be dismissed out of hand as crazy. Monica Lewinsky is an example of someone whose story might have been dismissed out of hand as crazy, only it turned out to be true.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2015 at 3:39 pm #

    Personally, I don’t think Leo’s claim reaches the level of “deserving” debunking. I also think that the evidence establishing the moon landing debunks Leo’s claim. With that said, an interested party might want to address the mechanism of the sound transmission that Leo relies on in his theory.

    Slartibartfast: Fair enough (and I never thought differently), but my question about Leo still stands: do his moon hoax claims “deserve” any debunking?

  16. avatar
    ellen November 25, 2015 at 3:41 pm #

    Paul Strauss tells me that he has been blocked from answering birther comments on this site:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ib98zR01ys

    And he would appreciate anyone who wants to pitch in against Bobby Smith’s and other birther’s recent comments to do so—because he cannot.

  17. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 25, 2015 at 4:03 pm #

    Again, fair enough. I do believe that other (lunar) conspiracy theories that have fallen apart and Leo’s own, previously debunked, efforts in birtherism are issues that must be addressed before considering debunking necessary. Without either repudiating or redeeming both issues they must, in my opinion, be held against the credibility of his current work.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I haven’t see Leo’s movie, but I know the premise. While his particular evidence may not have been debunked, I believe that the moon landing is sufficiently well-established to say it’s wrong. I would not argue that Leo’s theory is crackpot BECAUSE other moon landing evidence has fallen apart, nor because he calls himself funny names. I would argue that the landing is well established and that Leo isn’t qualified as an expert.

  18. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 25, 2015 at 4:22 pm #

    *sigh*

    You don’t play fair, do you?

    Briefly, Leo claims that sounds (such as a hammer striking the flag and a thrown tool striking the lunar module) heard on the NASA broadcasts from the lunar surface are impossible because sound doesn’t travel through vacuum (he has some clips from the ISS and statements by astronauts that appear to support this). He completely ignored both myself and at least one other pointing out that sound travels through solids as well as gasses. I also explained to him what he would need to do to make a scientific argument, which he also ignored.

    I’m thinking about commenting on his YouTube thread. If I do, I’ll cross-post here. I’ve watched the whole thing (and wrote a debunking that has apparently been lost in the trackless wastes of the intertoobz) and my impression is that Leo is worse at physics than he is at the law.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Personally, I don’t think Leo’s claim reaches the level of “deserving” debunking. I also think that the evidence establishing the moon landing debunks Leo’s claim. With that said, an interested party might want to address the mechanism of the sound transmission that Leo relies on in his theory.

  19. avatar
    Rickey November 25, 2015 at 10:02 pm #

    CRJ:
    Obama certainly may have his reasons for sealing his academic records

    A candidate for President should at least have a working knowledge of Federal law.

    Obama never sealed his academic records. Virtually eveyrone’s academic records are confidential pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ford in 1974.

    Read and learn, if you can.

    http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

  20. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 25, 2015 at 10:10 pm #

    For that matter, where are Mr. Judy’s college (or high school if that’s his terminal degree) records? Shouldn’t he uphold the standard he asks others to meet?

    Rickey: A candidate for President should at least have a working knowledge of Federal law.

    Obama never sealed his academic records. Virtually eveyrone’s academic records are confidential pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ford in 1974.

    Read and learn, if you can.

    http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

  21. avatar
    Rickey November 25, 2015 at 10:54 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    For that matter, where are Mr. Judy’s college (or high school if that’s his terminal degree) records?Shouldn’t he uphold the standard he asks others to meet?

    We haven’t seen his birth certificate, either. And where is the proof that his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born?

  22. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 26, 2015 at 12:24 am #

    Here you go, Doc. I just posted this on Leo’s YouTube page (linked above):

    +Jet Wintzer No one should believe you, not because you aren’t a physicist, but because you are ignorant of basic physics. When you have a mass that is suspended and free to swing from its mooring, you have a simple pendulum. Any pendulum oscillates back and forth until all of its energy is bled off due to friction, which can take quite a while depending on the design of the pendulum (such as pendulum clocks in museums). You should have learned this in your very first physics class. On the Earth, an oscillation like this would be damped pretty quickly—due to air resistance mostly. On the Moon, however, it is just friction at the attachment points, something which would stop it much more slowly than you would expect in an atmosphere.

    In other words, what is seen on the video is perfectly plausible if it were filmed on the Moon and only requires explanation if it were filmed on Earth. Even your “vent” hypothesis begs the question of why they designed a sound stage to fake the landing and put in ventilation equipment that gave it away. In the end, all that you’ve managed to demonstrate is that you lack the expertise necessary to understand the issues that you are trying to raise. Why should anyone believe someone who obviously doesn’t understand what they are talking about?

    In fact, you have demonstrated your ignorance over and over in your movie, nowhere more so than in your main thesis about sounds. You say that sounds couldn’t have propagated on the Moon because there is no atmosphere, but you forget (or are unaware) that sound can also travel through solids. The transmission of vibrations through solids (like the lunar lander, the ground, the hammer and space suits) would behave very differently than they would in an atmosphere—in particular, they would be much stronger since vibrational energy isn’t being bled off into the atmosphere.

    If you had wanted to raise a scientific objection to the NASA video and had the relevant expertise, you would have noted and addressed this issue in your film. Instead we are left with the conclusion that you are either not competent to make the claims that you do or simply not honest.

    Given your previous history of dishonesty and willful ignorance regarding the meaning of the term “natural born citizen”, I suspect it is the latter.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Personally, I don’t think Leo’s claim reaches the level of “deserving” debunking. I also think that the evidence establishing the moon landing debunks Leo’s claim. With that said, an interested party might want to address the mechanism of the sound transmission that Leo relies on in his theory.

  23. avatar
    J.D. Reed November 27, 2015 at 7:27 pm #

    Rickey you cannot lead someone like CRJ to learn when he’s so determined not to learn. 6 1/2 years after the “Obama sealed his records” lie has been debunked CRJ repeats it 5 times or so. This makes him (a) a prevaricator or (b) cosmically uninformed or (c) so dense that even after reading Obama’s actual XO he still honestly believes that it sealed his records.
    Anyone reading who’s unfamiliar with the issue, Obama’s XO 13489 is identical in content, and about 95 percent identical in wording, to Ronald Reagan’s XO 12667.