…and just WOW
John Woodman, the self-described “tea-party conservative,” had suspicions about the PDF file of the President’s long form birth certificate released by the White House. His independent investigation into which he invested over 500 hours, culminated in the publication of a book, Is Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud? Mr. Woodman is a computer professional and brings a remarkable thoroughness and objectivity to the analysis, and he did much of the heavy lifting to demonstrate conclusively that the birther image analysis of the certificate didn’t hold water.
Woodman retired a couple of months back from the Obama eligibility controversy; however, there were a couple of loose ends, namely new claims made by volunteer birther image “experts” that contradict previous birther “experts” but nevertheless hadn’t been addressed by Woodman. Now he’s back with a new article: “Genuine, World-Class Computer Expert Evaluates Obama’s Birth Certificate PDF”.
The article has stunning implications, so go read it. No spoilers here.
Nice. Can’t believe he (Q.) took the time! Gods bless him for it. I’ve been pointing PDF sniffers to his patents and papers for over a year, never occurred to me to bother the man himself.
I figured the deluded are only interested in a truth, not the truth, they’ll never acknowledge the truth no matter how loudly and clearly presented.
That said, I recall how last May prominent birfers (such as Gellar) were musing about when WND& Co. would be getting prominent ‘experts’ from Adobe to sound off (note that in birferstan, ‘Adobe’ is the entirety of the field of computer graphics). Never, that’s when. They’d say something like Q. did to Woodman. Such as … the truth.
“Perhaps if I had time to toy around with packages and parameters I might find something very close to what was used to generate the document shown by the WH, but I unfortunately do not have the time right now.”
The CCP welcomes an open invitation for Dr. Queiroz to come to Arizona and replicate the anomilies found in Obama’s Bc by scanning a birth certificate in a computer.
Dr. Queiroz isn’t too impressive. He makes an opinion but his opinion is really just bunch of questions about the document he can’t explain.
The CCP actually did hundreds of tests on the document and could replicate the anomilies in Obama’s BC.
“If it was a forgery it was a very sloppy job.”
It is Mike Zullo’s belief that the person hit download button by “mistake” when Obama’s birth certificate was released on the White House Server. This might explain why the so many problems with the document. The document was to be “fixed” better but the person who hit the download button apparently made a “mistake”. Once it was available on the White House Server there was no way to undo it because literally hundreds of thousands of copies of the PDF had been downloaded merely minutes upon being downloaded.
And I bet not a single one of the crazies will be convinced.
David Farrar is over at Woodman’s blog still demanding to see the original in the book in Hawaii.
I have a better challenge to the CCP:
Prove it in court, or shut up.
Only there are no problems in the document. You haven’t been paying attention.
I would point out that between Dr. Queiroz’s opinion and your own legwork on establishing the Maricopa CCCP’s lies about the 1961 manual, neither Arpaio nor his minons would be wise to make any of their claims to a court…
More than that he is also demanding to see the hospital records for the President’s mother. His reasoning is that how can we know if the facts on the BC are true.quite insane.
The evidence that Obama was born in Kenya is massive and compelling. Most damning the phamphlet produced by Obama’s agent. (The agent lied about the reason why the phamphlet says what it says.) It’s damning proof which why so many birthers will never believe the birth certificate is real.
Yeah, I’m going to ignore the guy with the patents on the subject at hand and turn instead to the used car salesman who harasses near-centenarians in assisted living facilities.
Did they mean to hit the Staples EASY button?
but the lousy person didn’t forget to create the high-resolution paper
that Savannah Guthry saw (and apply a seal to it) and the WH made
the press-copies from.
Queiroz only had a quick look at it – it takes time to investigate all the things.
We should ask what he thinks about Zebest’s and Papit’s articles –
but that needs some hours work
and after that a complete gynecological forensic exam of stanley’s ashes.
just her DNA
as the last four years have shown everyone, it’s never “just” anything.
most of all, it’s a never-ending exercise in denial.
Well, yeah. Professor De Queiroz’s credentials are impressive, but has he made any Youtube videos?
Well, I left the following to David on John’s site….
David asks for proof that Obama is a natural born citizen, and since he thinks he doesn’t know, he thinks he should be able to use the courts to pry into private documents. He thinks as long as someone is asking a question, it’s good enough to use police state tactics to leave “no stone unturned,” even if and when primary documents (which the Constitution accepts) demonstrates Obama qualifies. He questions the documents (which the Constitution doesn’t) and so thinks he has a right to snoop further.
Of course, he still needs to show he has a right to use US courts to make any kind of case against the president. I think he is a foreign agent. He could be someone switched at birth with a real US citizen, or he might just be a later transplant with records created to allow him access to the US courts to try to destroy the US political system from within. He needs to prove he is qualified before he can use the US courts. He needs to give us:
His long form birth certificate (the original, not a copy)
The names and numbers of witnesses of his birth
A copy of his birth footprint and finger prints
DNA evidence from his placenta to identify him with the one born at the hospital
Hospital records of his birth
Any education records
His bank accounts to make sure no foreign agent is paying him
His social security number to make sure everything is alright
And whatever else I might demand once he gives me those
David Farrar dispenses his cargo cult lawyering at John Woodman’s site (does Farrar not understand any legal terms, like prima facie, full faith and credit, evidence? – he never listens, never learns; even Taitz takes on board some new information from each of her failures, or so she egregiously stipulates).
But more importantly, at John Woodman’s site, David Farrar has been proven to be a rapist and murderer!!! That is, proven according to the standards that birthers set for others. We have found no conclusive evidence that David Farrar did not rape and murder a girl in 2004, despite an exhaustive search (again, exhaustive search by birther standards, meaning “we made it up and want it to be true”) and David Farrar has chosen not to deny these allegations, which can only be because they are true. It is imperative that all the ground around Farrar’s home is dug up to find the body of this poor girl, and it is certain (using birther reasoning) that some remains will be found. If none are, it will be proof that he has re-buried the remains somewhere else to conceal his guilt.
We believe the rape might have happened in Arizona, so the Arpayaso Klown Kar Possy must, absolutely must, use its full resources and wide expertise to find the body and bring this criminal to the justice he richly deserves. Indeed, there is additional evidence, which will be revealed at a press conference sometime in the future, that David Farrar might be, according to the style of reasoning he advocates, one of the worst mass murderers of recent times.
I am disgusted by Farrar’s criminality and by his refusal to prove his innocence. Is that so much to ask? Everybody who is accused of rape and murder is expected to prove their innocence, it’s a well-known fact. Anybody who does not support the drive to bring this vile man to justice is guilty of aiding and abetting a felon.
Oh, I could have been a birther… if I’d had all my brain cells removed and replaced by balls of cotton wool soaked in Stupid Juice.
The one good thing I can say about Farrar is that he generally remains calm and polite while arguing his nonsensical points. That’s unusual for the Birthin’ crowd.
Hawaii law requires hospitals to keep birth records for 25 years past the child’s 18th birthday, which, in the case of a birth in 1961, was 2004. So, good luck with that.
Read what he says. He says that the compression algorithms could absolutely produce all the effects seen. Zebest and Papit say that’s impossible. Therefore, de Queiroz says Papit and Zebest are FULL OF IT.
This might be your answer:
it’s not a question of whether we have a “right” to see.
It’s a question of good will, of the transparency he claimed,
of trust. As he did in Apr.2011 – there was no legal reason either.
Transparency doesn’t mean “every private fact can be on display.”
If that’s the best you got, you got nothing.
Orly is going to be on Stephanie Miller again today.
Carry that water, John. Thanks, foreigner, for grabbing the other handle. Way to drag each other down.
Woodman spent 500 hours and went over all of Zebest’s claims. That’s in his book. As for Papit, his central claim (made without authority of any kind) was that there is never more than one 8-bit layer, and Queiroz simply informed us that isn’t true.
So both are totally demolished, and neither was an authority to begin with.
Speaking of stones…
When I was a child my BFF lived next door. I had Tinker Toys and he had an Erector set. I suggested that we go to his house and play with the erector set. He said, “OK, if you will move this pile of stones from here to over there.” I moved the stones and said, “let’s go play with the Erector set.” He replied that we could if I moved the pile of stones back to where they were originally. I realized that he simply didn’t want to play with the Erector set and the stones were just an arbitrary barrier to that.
Substitute acknowledging Obama was really elected for playing with the Erector set and moving stones for asking for more and more proof.
This explains why I am less inclined to make detailed refutations of the birthers, and focus more on news than I used to.
Let’s play devil’s advocate.
Let’s assume for a second that you were correct and the pamphlet actually contains the truth (that Obama said sometime in the 1990’s that he was “born in Kenya”).
Does that *prove* he was born in Kenya? No.
Does that *invalidate* the official Hawaiian documents, combined with confirmations from the responsible officials, that say he was born in Hawaii? No.
The very best you can glean from this pamphlet was that Obama either lied to the author of the pamphlet, or that he actually assumed he was born in Kenya until he looked up his birth certificate and found that he was actually born in Hawaii.
Either way, the pamphlet is not admissible evidence in court. It won’t even help you in the court of public opinion, obviously, because people realize that birthers falsely inflate this error made by someone working for a publisher into “Obama himself said it” or “Obama knew for years that there is a pamphlet lying around that contains false information”.
Or let’s put it another way: when the author said “he was born in Kenya”, he is telling the truth and cannot possibly have been in error, yet when he says “I was wrong, he wasn’t born in Kenya”, he was lying. Talk about confirmation bias.
To put the pamphlet in perspective, if the first edition of “Harry Potter” said J.K. Rowling was born on 7/31/1964 (instead of 1965) and all subsequent editions also said the same, this would mean that Ms Rowling’s passport is a forgery, that her birth state somehow is part of a conspiracy to make Ms Rowling appear one year older (so that she can get social security one year earlier?) and that this is enough to put in question the prima facie evidence of all her official records, validated by the respective officials, as “forgeries, supported by lies”.
(And that scenario would be even worse for Ms Rowling as it’s about a bestseller book, not a promotional flyer for a book that was never even written.)
Right, that sounds so very sane.
How do you know how long he spent on it? He does say that he identified the algorithm family and did a few tests with a related program and came up with similar (but not identical) results. If he had spent more time he probably could have identified the exact program.
Look, you and your brethren have been claiming that you wanted an actual expert to look at it, and here is the WORLD”S LEADING EXPERT. And you think you can pass judgment on him from your mother’s basement?
As they say, “that dog don’t hunt my friend, that dog don’t hunt.”
He said “Transparency in Government” for crying out loud. Stuff like putting war spending back in the budget (which increased the deficit attributed to him) unlike his predecessor who ran the wars ‘off the balance sheet’ (and therefore hid the cost from the American people, just as he hid the casualties).
He did not say abdication of personal right to privacy.
If you want to attack him for breaking a promise about transparency, you would be better served if you reviewed how well he delivered on his promise to publish bills for public review before he signed them. Because that at least is one promise that he has been most unsuccessful at keeping.
Queiroz could look at the details of Zebest,Papit,posse.
These are long papers with many points.
> unfortunately I do not have the time right now
then > would not be surprised … derived fromsome DjVu tool
instead of “identified”
then > might find something very close
instead of “probably could have identified the exact program”
then, I have no brethren on this
then probably not “the world’s leading expert”
then, yes I do think I’m more expert on POBC processing algorithms
than him, mainly because I spent more time on it.
Zebest and Papit say that the effects are impossble. Queiroz says they are not only quite possible but fairly trivial to produce. There is no need to go any further.
Zebest and Papit screwed themselves by saying :”impossible” which is very easy to disprove.
Simpletons demand certainty. Frightened minds want closure, resolution, reassurance. The universe doesn’t care.
When can we expect cries that the election was rigged?
“: Queiroz could look at the details of Zebest,Papit,posse.
These are long papers with many points.”
Explain how forensics on a computer image has any value at all. Especially on a certificate that has been certified and verified, one that multiple reporters saw and one photographed it. Makes no sense.
LOL! You can spend a million hours if you like, but if you fail to grasp the underlying concepts, you’ll spend a millions hours pondering the shadows on the cave wall. You’re right there with the birther prohets and experts, willfully failing to comprehend.
Feel the warmth on your backside? Turn around and see the light.
> President Obama is committed to creating the most open and
> accessible Administration in history.
Foreigner – stop lying. It has been explained to you countless times that “transparency” refers SPECIFICALLY to government information, not records of individuals, which are protected under privacy laws.
Your question is not in good will, as it is fallacious.
That applies to matters of government record.
Personal information and private records have NOTHING to do with a government aministration’s purview.
You’ve been informed of this countless times, so stop pretending that you don’t know better. You are back to playing the role of dishonest Concern Troll. We are not stupid, so stop insulting us with long-debunked BS.
I don’t know if you’ve been following it, but we are already hearing, “The polls are rigged”. This has been the latest cry from toe-sucking Dick Morris and Faux News and the wonderful site, unskewedpolls.com, which has Romney ahead by 8 points. Their argument? The polls show more D’s than R’s. Of course they do, because the people polled SELF-IDENTIFY. And when the guy at the top of the R ticket is Monty Burns, a lot of people are going to self-identify as something other than R. All of the reputable pollsters have made very clear that they do not adjust their results based on partisan affiliation, because partisan affiliation is not a fixed variable, like race, gender or age, but varies according to how indviduals feel at a given point in time. The poll affiliation is different from registration, so regsitered independents will often identify in polls with whatever parrty they plan to vote for.
Since this is indisputably an Obama-related conspiracy theory, I really hope Doc will do a thread on it, if only for the sake of variety. After all, is there really anything new to say about the 416th birther lawsuit?
Can I be your legal expert? I watch a lot of Law and Order. I know that we have several actual, practicing lawyers here on this board, but everyone knows that real lawyers are all in the tank for Obama.
Let’s all get together and form a Citizen Grand Jury to indict Farrar. It sounds like fun! I still have my old gown from when I graduated high school all those years ago, so I can be the judge. Unless someone else has a better robe (like a black one; mine is green), and a powdered wig. Then HE can be judge. It’ll be fun! We can all dress up nice and sit in a big pretend jury room and find Farrar guilty on all counts, plus whatever other counts we feel like pinning on him (someone stole my bike back in 1998; Farrar hasn’t proven that he didn’t). Then after we hand down the indictments, we can all go out for pizza and beer.
I’m sorry, what evidence? You have one agent bio, that in addition to having the person who drafted it admit that she did so without checking with the President, is completely inadmissable in court. And on the other hand, you have two diffent forms of the President’s official birth certificate, both of which, in their paper form, are self authenticating prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein, plus the official confirmations from the state to serveral state courts, plus all the statements of state officials (of which any court can take judicial notice).
Remind me again, which side has the “massive and compelling” evidence?
Having read Farrar’s pile of dung over there….seriously what do you think- is he really this delusional or is he just making an argument he knows is idiotic in order to oppose Obama?
No one could be this stupid.
Do you think for even a microsecond about the nonsense you write?
“Most damning is the pamphlet produced by Obama’s agent…”
So, the most damning thing is a PR release written by someone who never knew Obama’s family, who has no first-hand knowledge of anything, and who publicly disavows what they wrote as an error. Seriously?
That’s damning only to foolish people who are desperately clinging to something they want to believe.
For many months, I’ve had nearly the very same endless circle of conversations with Mr. Farrar that I see on Mr. Woodman’s site. So I’ve formed come to the conclusion that he has no real clue to what he’s talking about and that terms become “magic words” to him – that he can just sling about incorrectly and make them mean whatever he wants them to mean, merely because they sound like an impressive incantation to him.
He’s essentially nothing more than a cut-paste parrot devotee of Mario, Leo and Orly. He doesn’t seem to have any original thoughts of his own and can’t defend his positions beyond merely repeating the same nonsense over and over and over again in different ways.
So yeah, I think he’s truly an idiot and and a perfect example of the Dunning-Krueger effect in action.
I actually think he is both an idiot (who doesn’t know the meaning of words) but also he knows he is wrong. This is why he will say anyone who asks the same from him as he demands of Obama are asking for too much and attacking his very person. He knows what he is doing is just an attack with no substance. But he then thinks he can add special words and he is ok.
Well, I do have to agree with John about this. The most damning piece of evidence they have is that pamphlet. But as you and others have pointed out, it is not actually damning at all which speaks volumes about the rest of their “evidence”
Which is the “magical thinking” part of his delusions. As I said, he views these “special words” as some sort of incantation… he doesn’t have to know what they really mean, they just sound impressive to an idiot like him; so he thinks that if *he* uses that same “big word”…it somehow makes his lunatic screeds become credible…
…but to any intelligent person, all such improper use of terms does is reveal the writer for the ignorant idiot that he is…
I believe that David “out of breath” Farrar really is that stupid—he misuses every legal term he comes across, tries to claim that a judge saying that his evidence was of “little to no” probative value means that it wasn’t worthless—in the context, lest we forget, of turning down what would have been the biggest birther PR coup ever (an administrative judge making a non-binding recommendation that the SOS take President Obama off of the ballot) in favor of competing against an empty chair (and losing)—, not to mention choosing Orly Taitz as his lawyer in the first place. All in all, I think that David is the leading candidate for the Dumbest birther in the Universe award.
Like Mr. Spooner said at Woodman’s blog, the fact that Obama conceals the document behind the scan says more than all the words in the world.
You’re an idiot. The health dept. in HI controls the original document. They produce certifed copies, and only to the recordee or proper authority. The COLB released first is actually the document any court or bureau in the land would prefer and will accept. Hawaii has repeatedly verified that BHO is a Natural Born Citizen, and he has been declared to be by numerous Courts. You’d have to have only the brain cells of a flatworm to believe otherwise.
The only FRAUD in the process is partisan smear merchants convincing bitter, weak-minded sheep-like conspiracy ‘believers’ that there is anything illegitimate about BHO, who will soon have earned his place among the very best Presidents ever to serve this great nation.
Dude, change your name. You’re embarrassing yourself!!
G., no, it’s what the WH writes on their contact webpage:
> President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible
> administration in American history. That begins with taking comments
> and questions from you, the public, through our website.
It’s not restricted to political questions.
The pdf is on that webpage, I asked how it was created, no response.
They must be aware about all this controvery about the pdf, the posse, the Corsi
and Woodman books,the blogs and youtube videos.
They could easily resolve this, just a statement from the person who created
the pdf. It was the decision and strategy of the WH to clarify about this,
that’s why they held the 2011.04.27 press conference gave the additional
explanation by Pfeiffer.. They handed a package of ~7? copies to
to the press to explain all this.Why do they stop now and refuse to explain
how the pdf was created ? The whole purpose of that press conference
could be enhanced a lot. The pdf is now the main source of uncertainety,
confusion,suspicion since over a year. Most of this could be resolved by
explaining how it was created.
oh, and I forgot the lawsuits. All the attorneys,judges,letters,statements,affidavits.
Much of this would not have happened if they had explained how the pdf was created,
which software was used.
No, the lawsuits would not have happened if all those sore losers had accepted reality and gotten on with their lives.
You are not even an American citizen. Why should our government waste its time answering your questions? What gives you the right to interfere with our country? They don’t owe you a response.
What they have done already is all they intend to do. There is NO law or requirement for them to have even done that much, let alone waste any more time on this silly nonsense.
You don’t like it…tough luck. If Americans are that unhappy about it or anything else they don’t like about this government, then they have a recourse at the ballot box, by voting for someone different. That is how our system works.
No one is entitled to more. Simple as that.
Only a fringe group of crazy people, who were already predisposed to irrationally hate the President in the first place, were not satisfied. They woudn’t have been satisfied no matter what this President does or says and they are simply looking for excuses.
There is NO uncertainty here at all – the state of HI has repeatedly confirmed and vouched for the information. That really is the end of the story right there. Only the dishonest and the insane can’t accept that.
You must mean website, not web page. The PDF is not on that page.
Steve, G, this is not exclusive
I’m “wasting” my time to help you Americans (and the whole world)
I think it would be good for USA if the WH would answer that question.
And I don’t understand why anyone -birther or obot or foreigner –
would think differently. I haven’t seen reasonal arguments why it should be
kept secret. Just only the usual lies, personal ridiculings,insults.
Details, I used the contact form link from the page where the pdf is.
And they sent that automatic message, but nothing else.
Others had probably tried it too. If not, they should.
So you think, with no actual evidence to back this up, that the original birth certificate contains secret extra information that the version posted online doesn’t?
god! it’s hard work dealing with birfoons sometimes.
go to the WH pdf, right click – properties.
that’s the programme they used to create it.
or didn’t you get past the first line on WND saying `it’s a fake!!!’
There is no controversy. There is only sideshow. You do not live here, and you seem to rely on a limited frame of reference and materials that you think there is a controversy.
I personally know the kind of people who have an issue with the PDF, and I also know everybody else. The people who care about the PDF are never going to be taken seriously here.
By saying that the PDF is now the main source of controversy, you also at the same time are saying there is no controversy, because it is not an issue at large, only in sideshows that have no import.
Really who actually cares how the PDF was created. It is an intellectual exercise here and elsewhere. But as a point of concern? It is silliness.
They stop now because it is silliness, and a desire to make government *more* transparent is not the same as bending over for fools, much less inconsequential fools.
There is nothing to resolve. Except why fools and cranks are foolish and cranky. They can safely leave that to the psychologists, and focus on more important matters.
The bottom line is that anyone who thinks the PDF matters deserves ridicule. At least or especially if they make a big deal out of it.
You clearly do not understand. But here in this country it is a non-issue. The reasonable answer you are looking for is that people don’t waste time on non-issues.
If you think it is an issue, you are sentencing yourself to a lot of disappointment.
But here in this country it is not considered important by most of us. Even in my birther family, the ones who go on about the PDF are the ones really off the range.
Paper, not only me, this very blog, also Obama seems to disagree with you.
He thought there was a controversy (“yet this thing just keeps on going”)
and that’s why he released the LFBC in 2011.
They made a mistake in that they not explained how the pdf was created, which
reduced the effect, the purpose of the action. They could still do it so to enhance it.
The amount of the controversy was big enough in 2011 to send his lawer to Hawaii,
it should still be big enough to just only explain how the pdf was created.
See the polls, the posse, the coming election, the Gilbert DVDs.
It obviously was big enough in summer 2011, when all these WND-“experts” showed up,
when the subject was fresh and actively discussed here and elsewhere.
That would have saved us, the Dr.C,Woodman,the posse,WND,… many efforts
and it would have costed almost nothing.
Yet they just kept on being silent. To keep Obama in “amusement” of watching it.
> The bottom line is that anyone who thinks the PDF matters deserves ridicule.
> At least or especially if they make a big deal out of it.
a good address would then be Dr.C. here since he based most of his blog entries on it.
And yourself since you are here and reading it.
For what purpose? So that birthers have a new person they can call a liar and a traitor? Did birthers believe the woman who erroneously wrote “born in Kenya” on some promotional flyer when she said that she was in error?
What could possibly be resolved, for a birther, by *any* statement anyone involved in scanning and publishing the PDF could say?
Birthers are only looking for more statements they can twist into the opposite (“he did not say he published it *unchanged*”, “when he said ‘immediately’, he didn’t say ‘directly'”).
Who cares, except a couple hundred wingnuts? The sane world has moved on.
Don’t you know that the polls are all skewed. You are behind the times and really need to get up to date. Birtherism is dead, long live skewerism!
That is far from true. Less than 5% of the articles on this site deal with Obama’s long form birth certificate PDF.
The official birth certificate that Obama released in 2008 is a simple scan into a JPG file. The Hawaii Department of Health said on their web site that the original records had been checked and Obama was born in Hawaii. Birthers called that a fake.
There were many, many lawsuits before the PDF. It is fantasy thinking to believe that some piece of information would make the birthers go away. As Obama himself said:
Those are the people from whom “facts are not facts” and who just “make stuff up.”
I said there is no controversy at large in this country about the *PDF.* I did not say there are no fools in the world.
With all respect to Dr. C, whose blog I greatly appreciate, it has no value in the sense you are discussing. Dr. C’s tagline is “fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud.” PDF trolls are a particularly toxic form of mud. Hazmat suits are useful. You, meanwhile, consistently and continually try to make a *bucket* into a huge stone quarry, a molehill into a mountain.
Obama does not disagree with me. He released his LFBC. He has not gone down the meaningless, muddy PDF rabbit hole.
I quote the President from those very same remarks you are referencing :
“We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.”
and his *conclusion*:
“I know that there’s going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest. But I’m speaking to the vast majority of the American people, as well as to the press. We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do. We’ve got big problems to solve. And I’m confident we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them — not on this.”
I will repeat what I already mentioned to you elsewhere on this blog. The year is 2012. Not 2011. 2013 is coming soon to a theatre near you.
I also will repeat what I mentioned to you, about my reasons for coming to this blog. I have a direct feed to the heart and minds of actual living, breathing birther cranks. I cannot bother my friends too much with this crap, so I come here as a form of Al-anon. Working out my issues with my family. I like the community here, as well, and we do make intellectually interesting historical and legal excursions. An intellectual excursion, and working out family issues, does not make a controversy.
But hey, you want to say I am part of the problem? Maybe so. I often think about not following this blog’s comments, because I worry that engaging people such as yourself damages me, makes me small, gets me stuck in your mud. Coming here may make me a clown, but it doesn’t make concerns about the PDF less of a sideshow.
As for your examples: you mention the Arpaio posse, which is a joke, a perfect example of a sideshow. You mention the Gilbert DVDs/D’Souza Dreams, but D’Souza’s issues are not about the PDF. D’Souza himself even says he is not a birther. (Indeed, two of my sisters stopped being birthers after Obama released his LFBC. They both are not interested in the PDF. They nonetheless still think Obama is a socialist etc etc etc, and I long long ago first heard D’Souzas’s basic spiel from my older sister.) Let’s indeed look at those polls and the coming election, with Obama pulling ahead of Romney. Let’s talk about how Republican commentators are already preparing for a sinking ship.
Those in my family who talk about the PDF are the really hardcore birthers, who could have been present and even signed as witnesses to Obama’s birth in Hawaii, and they still would claim it didn’t happen and that their own signatures were a forgery. There is nothing that will change their minds. And those who did let go of their birtherism (when Obama offered up his LFBC) still despise the President and would never vote for him.
So your concern about the PDF is utter distraction, at best. But I will grant you, even telling you that is probably giving you too much attention. Well, at least someone lurking may find it useful to have the record corrected (as I have myself found such corrections useful).
foreigner-Have you ever actually visited the US or is your “knowledge” of its ways and customs based on the media and internet?
John Wayne movies.
AFAIR most articles in 2011 were about the pdf. Then came the NBC legal stuff, then the posse
We can pick some random of the blog entries here since Apr.27.
Well, it’s probably not most in the sense of > 50%.
But I think it was the most common “category” of blog entries.
Close to the NBC lawsuits, —see below—
So, was it a mistake to release the LFBC ?
Much worse than explaining the pdf now, since the “arguments”
that you give against explaining the pdf seem to apply to the
LFBC-release as well.
> I know that there’s going to be a segment of people for which no matter what we put out,
> this issue will not be put to rest
I understand : a segment = minority
the purpose of releasing the LFBC was to convince the majority. They were sloppy,
they failed to explain the pdf. Do you think this was deliberate ? It doesn’t fit their
strategy with explaining the other details to the press.
When they detected the mistake they didn’t want to admit it, didn’t want to
fetch it after.
so what’s the reason for not explaining the pdf ?
Too much effort, too much cost ? Not important enough ? hardly.
Reporters had asked for WH-comment after the posse-press conferences – nothing.
More important things to do ? With one short statement, interview less than 10min
of the person you uploaded it they could save thousands of hours of investigation
that could else have gone into the economy. And it contributed to a small loss
in popularity, division of the country.
So, what else is it ? It’s somehow unethical, a loss of honor, uncool to speak about it at all ?
Even when it’s only a small employee for some minutes ?
Is it specific to nowadays USA ? (where politicians must be funny to be successful)
well, maybe ~~25% of this site is about the pdf
google hits for this site by keywords:
foreigner, you saying something? Still repeating your old nonsense?
PDF concerns = crap. You’ll never get past that. End of story. Non-issue. Most people know it is garbage.
Or as Jay Carney said in his “short statement” on May 30, 2012, addressing the same forgery/fraud concerns hyped by Trump again: “Ridiculous distraction.”
Woodman’s dissection, by the way, has no affirmative value for Obama (Hawaii’s confirmation, verification and link to the PDF fits that bill quite nicely and sufficiently); the value of Woodman’s dissection is in demonstrating *how* liars lie.
There’s nothing to resolve. Your “argument” is akin to saying that we can resolve the controversy of the Earth’s shape by buying you and all of the other flat-earth types your own spaceships so that you can orbit the planet and observe for yourself.
As for how PDFs are created, you lay a piece of paper onto a scanner and then press a button. I know you’re a birther but there’s really no excuse for you to be so ignorant about something so simple.
How many birther “experts” does it take to create a PDF?
It amazes me the amount of electrons that have been sacrificed discussing something that, any way you look at it, comes down to this:
john and other birthers must read the story of a man so scared of an Obama win that he killed his wife and 2 sons then himself. Mr Peterson’s paranoia and the demons from his past prevented him from enjoying life, his friends and his family. (prevented him from enjoying life sounds like what birthers do)
Well, with no actual evidence that the President was born anywhere but Hawaii, the birthers don’t really have much to go on. Like all birthers foreigner keeps the dream alive by trying to convince the rest of us that her arguments are valid. The saddest part? She’s not smart enough to realize that the rest of us are smarter than she is, and that we can see right through her. Tragic.
That depends…do we count each voice in their heads as an individual person? If so, it might take a while to count ’em all.
Trick question. Everyone knows only two citizen parents can create a PDF. One to hold the paper down, the other to press the button.
I wasn’t sure when I wrote this if it was a set-up for a joke or a philosophical question—I guess Paper and Stanislaw have shown that the answer is “both”… 😉
I’m not sure where you get 25% out of that data (you should show your math), but it’s not right. First, every PDF file referenced in the site, whether it is a legal filing in PDF format or an article about Obama’s PDF birth certificate gets a hit as PDF by Google. For example the Joseph Farah v. Esquire lawsuit is one of the returns for PDF. Also Google hits return comments made about the articles beyond what the articles on the site say.
Also Google’s hit counts are crazy, returning more hits than there are pages on the site! There are only 2,389 published articles on the entire site plus 84 pages, but Google returns multiples of that. If a single comment has the phrase “birth certificate” in the first part, then it will be on the comments widget FOR EVERY PAGE that Google crawls. You can’t use Google to count the site’s content.
What I did to arrive at my generous 5% number was to look at all the articles in the “Birth certificate” category, 275 out of 2389 total on the site. I’m pretty consistent putting articles mentioning the birth certificate in the proper category. Roughly one half of those (137) articles were written before April of 2011 and couldn’t have been about the PDF,
Enough of the birth certificate articles since the release of the PDF were not about the PDF to bring the number below 5%.
Ahh, but crap has nuances that need very careful examination!
Ralph and Herbie
Apparently, the way that’s written, it appears that my vote (both for local officials as well as Obama) on Nov. 6th will cancel out yours. 😛 I’m so excited about that.
one of Queiroz’ students could examine it as his thesis
A thesis must be an original contribution to human knowledge—the examination of a giant turd doesn’t qualify.
Oh, I don’t know. If it were a dinosaur turd, preserved in ice or amber or something and showed what dinosaurs ate, I suppose it could be,
I’m often surprised that with so many graduate students at so many universities across the world, that there are still so many original contributions to be made.
Oh yeah? Well I issue an open invitation for Joe Arpaio and the the CCP to come to Delaware and replicate the anomalies in YOUR FACE. BOO-YAH! *high fives all the men*
Expanding human knowledge only increases the size of the frontier…
What would you suggest as a thesis? Perhaps Mr. Godkin would like to take you up on it and go get a second PhD?
They would be better off doing a thesis about an actual giant turd
Some are big, some are small.
My thesis in maths did not actually prove something new, it “only” contained an elegant proof of a theorem for which only a complex, unintuitive, overly long proof was known (basically my task was to find a way to extend the elegant proof for the finite-dimensional case to the infinite-dimensional case). It was something no-one had done in the 30+ years that the theorem was known, so it was “kinda cool” to be the first to tackle the task, but I doubt it was of much practical use to people working in the field (although I could use the proof to extend the original theorem a little, but my prof considered that part merely an addendum to the thesis and said he doubts the extension is even worth mentioning, but then again he had little motivation anyway, he was already thinking of his retirement two more months down the road and I was just “another duty to complete”).
I remember back in school writing a paper on the subject of cloning and using the great philosophers to make a case for the humanism of a clone. It was a fun paper
In the days before the Internet, it was not possible verify that a result was new, but I did get my “Explosion point characterization theorem” published in the Journal of Undergraduate Mathematics. It was an unimportant bit of topology, but so far as I know, not previously proven.
While this might be my bias as a mathematician, I see that as reasonable for a thesis. I had a professor at Michigan State who apparently had the shortest thesis on record at Stanford (14 pages including table of contents and bibliography) because he came up with an elegant proof of a theorem that was already known to be true. Hell—over 30 of the 80 pages in my dissertation were pictures… 😛
Just out of curiosity, what did the theorem say? (I assume you don’t have a link… 😉 )
Slart, you are a complete idiot to think the Arpaio posse fears defending their findings in a court of law. Arpaio is a law enforcement officer with decades of experience. Do you “really” believe he is willing to risk his entire career to make false claims in front of reporters from across the US, against the THE most powerful man in the world – or maybe you missed Arpaio’s very public news conference before you made your clueless claim?
if arpaio had something to present in court in the way of evidence, why hasn’t he after a year of press conferences?
would it be that arpaio (or more to the point WND) doesn’t want to take it to court for fear of being laughed out and losing those sweet birfoon bucks as a result of their `investigation’ being shown publicly to be pure bunk?
arpaio is old and near retirement, and with the cases pending against him, he has nothing to lose by jumping on the bus to birferstan. it could be quite lucative for him when he starts asking for donations to his `defense fund’ when he comes out with the line `obama is out to get me because i’m investigating him’, which the birfoons will swallow.
the fact that he’s a very unsavoury character and the chickens have come home to roost woldn’t enter their (small) minds.
Please tone down the personal attacks.
I don’t know that Arpaio is afraid to defend his volunteer posse’s findings in court. I doubt that he who is proud of not knowing how to use email even understands them. What I am sure that he knows, and knew from the beginning, is the he has no jurisdiction in the matter whatever. It’s all for publicity.
Here’s a link: