Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
It has to be high up there in the most absurd statements of all time

Patient: "Doctor, Doctor! You've examined me thoroughly; can you tell me what's wrong with me?"
Doctor: "I'm sorry, it would be improper of me to diagnose you. I'm only a doctor and an expert in medicine. It would be improper of me to draw any conclusion on the basis of all that expertise."
 
Patient: "Doctor, Doctor! You've examined me thoroughly; can you tell me what's wrong with me?"
Doctor: "I'm sorry, it would be improper of me to diagnose you. I'm only a doctor and an expert in medicine. It would be improper of me to draw any conclusion on the basis of all that expertise."

Thats grand made me smile

Maybe you can do another TV documentary about this for National Geographic, like the Apollo one
 
Actually I'm talking on and off with two different documentary producers on just such a proposition. Maybe a third, if Bad Universe starts up again.

I iwll keep an eye out for it, I would like to see one where all the debunking of the truthers is rolled into one programme too.
 
It seems to me that they just think he's black.

Dave


I raised this point in a thread in USA Politics a few years ago, and some people didn't like it, but I'm going to raise it again here anyway, because facts are facts, and there's already plenty of reason to heap scorn on the Birthers and their arguments without adding unsubstantiated charges that their claims are motivated by racism.

During and after the 1880 Presidential campaign, arguments eerily similar to those of the Birthers against Obama were advanced by elements of the Democratic Party against GOP Vice-Presidential candidate (and later President) Chester A. Arthur.

From The New York Times, Dec. 22, 1880:

MATERIAL FOR A DEMOCRATIC LIE

ST. ALBANS, Vt., Dec. 21.—A stranger arrived here a few days ago, and registered at the American House as A. P. Hinman, of New-York. Since then he has been very busy in the adjoining town of Fairfield, ostensibly collecting materials for a biography of Vice-President-elect Arthur. He has privately stated to leading Democratic citizens, however, that he is employed by the Democratic National Committee to obtain evidence to show that Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner. He claims to have discovered that Gen. Arthur was born in Canada, instead of Fairfield; that his name is Chester Allen instead of Chester Abell [sic]; that he was 50 years old in July instead of October, as has been stated, and generally that he is an alien and ineligible to the office of Vice-President.

(source)

See also here.

Further, consider all of the bizarre claims made by fringe groups about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Clearly those were not motivated by racism.
 
So what's the bottom line here? Who would have forged a PDF of the birth certificate, and why? Senior officials of the state of Hawaii attested that the two photocopies that they personally made on security paper and delivered to the White House were true copies of the original document archived in a bound volume in the state records office. Reporters actually handled one of those copies and were handed photocopies of it. A previous state health director had also attested that he had studied and "verified" the original document. If the internet PDF was altered from the original in any way, a lot of people, especially the Hawaiian officials, would have been in a position to say so. Or does someone think that the original document in the bound volume is the forgery? If that was so, then a photocopy wouldn't show any evidence of it. And this is all on top of the fact that the computer-generated short form shows that identical information was entered into the state computer databases prior to 2001, before anybody ever heard of Barack Obama. And add the fact that the current governor of Hawaii says he personally knew Barack Obama's parents and considered them "dear friends." The "layers" created by PDF software have been explained in comprehensive detail by experts, including one employed by the National Review. What would it take to for the birthers to say "Whoops, I guess that sucker is real"?
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59087668/Response-to-Zebest
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/
http://onlineathens.com/stories/042411/nat_819148574.shtml
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp (note lengthy videos)
 
I iwll keep an eye out for it, I would like to see one where all the debunking of the truthers is rolled into one programme too.

We're thinking of a series format where we tackle a different conspiracy theory each episode and spend an hour presenting debunking evidence and demonstration. But that's expensive. Very. We tried once before, and the producer got it green-lighted by History Channel. But then HC went all woo-woo, and it was canceled. A pilot exists, though, with Yours Truly (among other notables) in it. Also a celebrity host and a studio audience, but those items will probably get nixed in the pitch for a reboot -- again, too expensive. The other problem is avoiding the Mythbusters Effect. (Oh wait, I worked on that show too!) Every show that tries to debunk something is either (a) too similar to Mythbusters, or (b) a failure.

One idea I had was to fly to England and get Lord Monckton's birth certificate (which he's proud of saying is a public record) and showing that by the Birthers' arguments, it too would be considered a forgery. Mostly I just want to back to England. Haven't been in several years.
 
I hope it gets off the ground and will look forward to the results.

I like Mythbusters but I would like something a bit more heavy weight myself.

I would love for instance to see a CTEr put up against a well known legal heavy weight barrister and see how long they last under heavy duty forensic questioning.
 
If the internet PDF was altered from the original in any way, a lot of people, especially the Hawaiian officials, would have been in a position to say so.

Indeed, but the argument lately expressed here is that all those people have been "brainwashed." And yes, there are accusations that the Hawaii officials have been pressured to certify the existing paper and digital documents. Yeah, the whole thing reads like a bad political thriller novel.

Or does someone think that the original document in the bound volume is the forgery?

Indeed that has been proposed as well.

If that was so, then a photocopy wouldn't show any evidence of it.

But that's the point. Birther logic goes kind of like this:

The Federal Election Commission's certification is fake. We need a birth certificate.
The digest certificate is fake. We need a copy of the long-form certificate.
The copy of the long-form certificate is fake. We need a certified copy of it.
The certified copy is fake. We need the original.
The original is fake. We need...

In other words, the arguments fit a pattern:

___ is fake. We need ___.

But mathematically speaking, there is an ordering implied here. So if we quantify the argument:

X is fake. We need X+1.

The problem is that X derives from an open-ended set, hence the cartoon posted a few days ago where the Birthers are in a time machine witnessing Obama's birth live, and still saying they need more.

Despite the relative and iterative nature of the argument, there is a certain absolute value of X at which absurdity is achieved. We were there a long time ago, but the Birthers can still add 1, and do so ad infinitum nausaeam.

What would it take to for the birthers to say "Whoops, I guess that sucker is real"?

The election of a different candidate as President, and maybe not even then. Political conspiracy theorists seem to hold grudges forever.
 
Most of the time it seems to be a desire to hold the ultimate trump card to make the argument moot.
 
I guess they have to cling to the wreckage becasue that is all that is left to them, the birthers position is a car crash like the truthers for that matter
 
Predictable ad homimens. ...

I'm very confused by this statement. Have you still not learned the definition of ad hominem? Throwing out fancy terms does not help you if you don't know their meaning.

No. You say this every time your experts are impeached, and it's clear you have no idea what an ad hominem argument really is. You said, "[T]here are many other highly qualified exerts..." (emphasis added). That's a quality about the person that makes his opinion valuable as evidence. That's what allegedly makes him an expert, and why you quote him as opposed to, say, Jim Gaffigan or Michael Phelps, or your father in law.

But after having identified that quality about the person (i.e., "high qualification") as being the key element that creates evidence out of his statements, you cannot then cry foul when that quality turns out to have been pretended. The rebuttal on those grounds is no more ad hominem than your original attempt to qualify them on those same grounds.

If you're going to use expert testimony, learn how it works.

It's attacking the person as opposed to the substance of the evidence. Get it now?????

When a person has made a claim to be speaking from a position of authority, then two of the more common informal fallacies no longer apply in the same way: the appeal to authority is no longer an informal fallacy if the person's claim to authority is upheld, as this now makes it a legitimate appeal to authority; and dispute over the person's claim to authority is never a fallacious ad hominem argument, as the claim to authority itself has become a premise.

Dave

Yes, I get that you steadfastly refuse to understand how expert testimony works.

Attacking the person's claim to knowledge, on which the allegedly expert testimony is based, is not "attacking the person."

Your argument is: "This person his highly qualified; his opinion is evidence."
My rebuttal is: "This person is not highly qualified; therefore his opinion is not evidence."

The "substance of the evidence" in expert testimony is the knowledge and judgment allegedly possessed by the witness, which unqualified people do not possess. Unless there is legitimate expertise, there is no substance. Get it?

I quoted some of the exchange on the issue of ad hominem and challenging the qualifications of an expert because I thought some of the posts were very well written and because it goes to what might be obvious about the nature of Robert Prey's posts in this thread.

I don't want to slight anybody that made posts on this topic but I thought Dave Rogers' post and JayUtah's post stood out for their clarity and precision of language. The logic of their response could not be missed by any objective reader with normal reasoning capabilities.

Which brings me to my second point. Is there any possibility that Robert Prey did not understand the logic of these posts? Is it possible that some combination of his group bias and confirmation bias allows for the complete inability to understand any reasoning that conflicts with his preconceived notions? I don't know the answer, but whatever the answer it suggests that regardless of what evidence and argument is put forth in this thread RP's stated views will not be affected.
 
So what's the bottom line here? Who would have forged a PDF of the birth certificate, and why? Senior officials of the state of Hawaii attested that the two photocopies that they personally made on security paper and delivered to the White House were true copies of the original document archived in a bound volume in the state records office. Reporters actually handled one of those copies and were handed photocopies of it. A previous state health director had also attested that he had studied and "verified" the original document. If the internet PDF was altered from the original in any way, a lot of people, especially the Hawaiian officials, would have been in a position to say so. Or does someone think that the original document in the bound volume is the forgery? If that was so, then a photocopy wouldn't show any evidence of it. And this is all on top of the fact that the computer-generated short form shows that identical information was entered into the state computer databases prior to 2001, before anybody ever heard of Barack Obama. And add the fact that the current governor of Hawaii says he personally knew Barack Obama's parents and considered them "dear friends." The "layers" created by PDF software have been explained in comprehensive detail by experts, including one employed by the National Review. What would it take to for the birthers to say "Whoops, I guess that sucker is real"?

Sheriff Joe put it very succinctly. Did you view his press conference? What is needed is permission to view the original microfilm and compare it to the COLB. And, he added, it had better be the same. But the powers that be won't allow that. And the COLB has been roundly condemned as a forgery.
 
Sheriff Joe put it very succinctly.

No he didn't. His puppetmasters said stuff, but even that wasn't "succinct".

Did you view his press conference?

Sadly, yes.

What is needed is permission to view the original microfilm

Which he's not going to get, because he doesn't have a single legal leg to stand on.

and compare it to the COLB. And, he added, it had better be the same.

Or he'll stamp his little feet and cry.

But the powers that be won't allow that.

Because the Cold Cuts Posse doesn't have a single legal leg to stand on.

And the COLB has been roundly condemned as a forgery.

By lunatics, crackpots, and liars.
 
Sheriff Joe put it very succinctly.

The opinion of a county sheriff with no admissible evidence, no legal standing, no statutory authority, and specific injunctions against using public funds to investigate this any further means ... exactly what?

What is needed is...

No, it's not "needed" nor is it allowed by federal law, state law, or the U.S. Constitution. Get it?

Please stop trying to win by making up new rules.
 
And where was that done in the post you claimed it was done in?

Here's just one:

"Vogt is not a scanner "expert", but a scanner salesman. And a crackpot of the first order, who has written rambling books about multidimensional pyramid power and how global warming is a sign of how the sun will go nova and cause an ice age on Earth which will be God's judgment, and whose bizarre claims include:"

Without going into the "bizarre claims" some of which happen to be pretty standard theories among astro physicists (the God's Judgment part notwithstanding), Ant Pogo's ploy is to discredit the man without having to deal with the man's analysis of the evidence which refutes and debunks Ant Pogo's claims.
His detailed analysis can be viewed here:


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=305705

And Ant Pogo' denigrates a person who sells what he produces as nothing but a "salesman" -- a "crackpot" and therefore a low life that cannot be trusted. A shameful ad hominem attack by which Ant Pogo avoids having to deal with his analysis of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
The opinion of a county sheriff with no admissible evidence, no legal standing, no statutory authority, and specific injunctions against using public funds to investigate this any further means ... exactly what?



No, it's not "needed" nor is it allowed by federal law, state law, or the U.S. Constitution. Get it?

Please stop trying to win by making up new rules.

Jay, the alleged "rules" notwithstanding, which you mis interpret -- all that is needed is for The Anointed One to give his permission. And that would end it once and for all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom