Section 40 shifts gears, introducing a trip by Orly Taitz to Hawaii where Taitz met two of Vogt’s putative forgers of Obama’s birth certificate, Miki Booth and her friend (who is named in the sealed affidavit, but which I am not mentioning for the purposes of this article). He thinks this meeting was an attempt to spy on Orly Taitz, but provides no evidence of it.
In Section 41 Vogt claims to have seen the originals of these Hawaiian documents provided to Jerome Corsi from the two alleged Hawaiian conspirators and has high-resolution copies of them.
In section 42, Vogt seems to be channeling an old movie I once saw, claiming that forgers, out of pride, leave a small mark, a flaw in their work. “They can’t help themselves” says Vogt. Vogt provides no citations from the literature.
Sections 43-44 invoke Vogt’s imagination of what was in his putative forgers minds, but nothing to debunk.
In Section 45, Vogt invokes the 25-day number error as fact, when the error is actually in Vogt’s understanding of how certificates are numbered, as shown in Part 1. Vogt claims collusion. I claim incompetence on Vogt’s part.
In Section 46 Vogt claims that he convinced Mike Zullo that his version of certificate numbering was correct. Vogt doesn’t say when that occurred, but in fact Zullo’s version in his own affidavit doesn’t square with what Vogt says. I have that documented in my article, “Zullo v. Vogt.”
Section 47-53 is probably one of the most bizarre collections of dots ever connected. Vogt claims that the forger encoded her maiden name in a forged birth certificate by putting a smiley face on the “A” of Alvin, making a tiny mark over the “n” of “Alvin”, smudging the “H” in the word “THE” in the registrar’s stamp that at low resolution looks a bit like an “X,” the letter “E” just because it’s next to the “H” I guess and the pointing to the letter “e” from the word “Male,” which ,because the photocopy of the certificate from a book distorts characters at the binding, l00ks curved. Scramble them up, and voila, the forger’s maiden name.
Section 54 says that the certificates Vogt calls forgeries are not “squared off.” He reasonably says that the forms from a commercial printer would be square. What he fails to appreciate is that it is very difficult to put a piece of paper in a typewriter perfectly square, and it is difficult to photocopy something from a book perfectly square. Vogt observes that parts of the page fit his grid better than others. There’s no reason for a forgery to be that way, but Vogt calls it a mark of forgery anyway.
In Section 55 one cannot tell exactly what Vogt is doing, but we do observe in the Obama certificate some distortion due to the curved binding of the book from which it is copied that is stronger at the top of the form than at the bottom. This is normal copying from a book.
In Section 56 we’re back at letter spacing, where Vogt claims “A typewriter will place letters in exactly the same location every time.” That’s not actually true if the typewriter is old and worn, as one typically finds at public agencies. Also if the paper is at all loose, or shifts, spacing can change. There is no scientific testing done, just “this looks funny to me, so it must be fake.”
Sections 57-65 once again invokes a non-existent level of perfection in a typewriter to claim forgery. He also blows up letters beyond their actual resolution and fails to take into account that letters appear larger when they struck harder, or smaller when the ribbon is worn. Without controlling for variables like these, any analysis is worthless. Ironically, Vogt displays his bias when he says:
There has been some comment by a typewriter repairman that a worn-out typewriter would cause letters to be haphazardly placed on the paper each time—of course he never proved his statement.
So Vogt rejects an expert opinion because it isn’t proven, substituting his own inexpert opinion, that he never proves.
Section 66 is weird. Vogt shows an image of an obviously up-sloping date stamp and declares it identical in slope to an obviously down-sloping date stamp. Maybe it has something to do with the curved images in the reproduction of the Supreme Court book, but it certainly doesn’t look the way Vogt says. Here, you can look at it:
In section 68 Vogt claims that multiple typefaces were used on his putative forged certificates. I frankly don’t see it, and Vogt has never identified what these different typefaces are.
In section 69 Vogt shows what appears to me to be two identical type impressions, only he calls one bent and one straight. Both are magnified beyond the size of the original. He doesn’t account for photocopying variation and the ribbon condition. That is, there is no science here, only confirmation bias.
Section 72-73 observes that some of the type on two putative forgeries have letters that start in about the same place (within 4 points). Four points variation is not something I would call “exact same place.” He attributes it to the “style the forger used” rather than the much more mundane “style the hospital typist used.”
Section 74 goes back to the registrar’s stamp, noting that one side of the stamp appears bigger than the other. Why would a forger do that? A rubber stamp, however, when pressed harder on one side than the other (as obviously the case here) does appear bigger on the heavy side.
Section 75-76 moves from finding grims in tea leaves to circumstances. Vogt finds a connection between Obama and the putative forger because her father was a member of a union that a family friend of the Obama’s wrote for. That claim isn’t documented, while it could be true, but that’s a pretty tenuous connection. He might as well said that she liked ice cream, and Obama worked at Baskin Robbins.
Section 77-85 Vogt says that he sent Onaka copies of various registrar stamp images and asked him whether they are genuine. Onaka didn’t reply. Vogt explains variability in the stamps (and they are distinctly different stamps) not to multiple physical stamps, but to give Onaka plausible deniability. No, I don’t get it either. Vogt says:
You must ask yourself: Why did the forger incorporate errors into the registrar stamp every time? The only answer I can dome to is plausible deniability on the part of the Registrar. He could always say that it was not his registrar’s stamp and he didn’t certify the birth certificate. The forger and the Registrar have a working relationship.” [Relationship because Onaka allowed the alleged forger to get a copy of her son’s long form at a time when it required a waiver from the registrar was required to get that format issued. One notes that others have also obtained a long form in the time frame 2001 – 2011.]
The huge fallacy in the plausible deniability argument is that Dr. Onaka has repeatedly verified the contents of the Obama long form certificate in official documents. He’s affirming, not denying. This is also confusing to use something that someone other than Onaka allegedly did as evidence of something he intended.
Section 86 returns to the numbering sequence claims, that I addressed already in Part 1.
Section 87 deals with a copy of Obama’s birth certificate that attorney Scott Tepper sent to Dr. Onaka for verification as part of the litigation in Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi. Because Onaka verified the information on the birth certificate to Tepper, Vogt concludes that Onaka is in collusion with the forgers, since he didn’t assert forgery. Vogt also makes a reference to an “unsharp mask” that he thinks the forger used, but that’s for later.
Section 88 repeats the inept financial claims made against the late Loretta Fuddy. Fuddy did some refinancing to consolidate debt, and Vogt mistakenly believes that new money appeared on her financial disclosure. That’s covered in Part 1 of this article with links to that debunking.
And except for a legal remark in Sections 89-90, that’s it.
It is difficult to debunk some of Vogt’s stuff simply because he claims to see things that others don’t see. How do I debunk someone saying “that cloud looks like a poodle”? The thing that invalidates much of Vogt’s affidavit is simply the absence of any recognized methodology, the absence of controls, and the selective rejection of evidence that doesn’t fit his preconceived notions. Some things seem so facially absurd that all I did was to fairly condense and paraphrase it (the original is 48 pages). Maybe I used some sarcasm and ridicule, but I think the facts are presented fairly and what Vogt claims is ridiculous. In any case, you can read the original for Vogt’s presentation.
Probably the person most damaged by this disclosure is Miki Booth, someone who is a birther herself and up until Vogt’s affidavit a respected activist member of that community. Some people believed Vogt, and have turned against her. She told the Post & Email publisher Sharon Rondeau:
I know what the truth is, so I don’t have to come out and say, “I didn’t do it.” I keep reading all of the comments that are out there, and it’s amazing how people have turned against me. People say, “Doug Vogt lays out a very concise case, and it really looks good,” and that he’s proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that we’re the culprits. In a way, it’s comical and makes me laugh, because they’ve named Dr. Conspiracy, who has come out and said that it’s not Miki Booth and Johanna Ah’nee. He’s made several comments to that effect.
Miki Booth has good insight into Douglas Vogt, and puts it better than I could:
He’s terribly misguided and apparently suffers from some kind of tunnel vision so that he can’t look in any other direction and see that this is just totally wrong. He’s focused on these tiny little anomalies that are matched in the birth certificates I provided to come to the conclusion that they must all be forgeries.
The genesis of this article is a rather heated email exchange that I am having with Doug Vogt, in which he makes the claim that he figured out how the forger made the Obama certificate PDF. He claimed that the sealed affidavit would partly explain how he accomplished that. I asked for a copy of his PDF, but received no response. I got to the end of the sealed affidavit and only got the reference to the “unsharp” mask, an operator in Photoshop that reportedly creates halos around letters. A Xerox WorkCentre also creates halos and that’s what it appears that the White House used to create a PDF from Obama’s legitimate, state verified, birth certificate.
There is no forgery.
Vogt’s exercise in making his own forgery is described in his public affidavit rather than the sealed portion. It is discussed in Frank Arduini’s debunking of that document, “20 Shades of Vogt: Digital Document Forensics for Amateurs.” Arduini wrote:
What they then go on to do with that mock-up is just another exercise in egregious confirmation bias. On one hand, when they are able to recreate a detail of the birth certificate, they conclude that this must be evidence of forgery. But then on the other hand, when they are not able to recreate a detail of the birth certificate, they conclude that this also must be evidence of forgery.