Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The public release of tax records is not a requirement to hold office, . . . ..

But release of college records is?


Ah. Further reading shows Megalodon beat me to it -- but it bears repeating anyway.

 

[Ladewig]

Muslim by birth, Atheist by inclination, Satanist by profession, and Anti-Christ by Destiny.

well played.

 

[Dcdrac]

I have seen some major absurdities in my time but this birther lunacy even trumps the truthers and the Apollo cters for its inane contortions

 

[Robert Prey]

A Simple Question For Jay Utah and Ant Pogo

A Simple Question For Jay Utah and Ant Pogo:

Leaving all other issues aside, after having heard and digested all the evidence and arguments pro and con for the validity or non-validity of Obama's COLB document, am I correct in assuming that you would be willing to say with one hundred percent certitude, that the COLB document is an authentic copy of the original birth certificate, and not a forgery with content altered or created digitally? Would you say that, could you say that with 100 percent certitude????

 

[Tomtomkent]

A Simple Question For Jay Utah and Ant Pogo:

Leaving all other issues aside, after having heard and digested all the evidence and arguments pro and con for the validity or non-validity of Obama's COLB document, am I correct in assuming that you would be willing to say with one hundred percent certitude, that the COLB document is an authentic copy of the original birth certificate, and not a forgery with content altered or created digitally? Would you say that, could you say that with 100 percent certitude????

Thats two questions. Would they say the document was genuine. Would they say it certainly.

Yes, yes, and you should probably do something about the sticky question mark button on your keyboard, given the available evidence. The null hypothosis has not been overcome, and no reason offered to discount the verification of the document from the issuing authority.

If you want the certainty to change, offer actual valid evidence.

 

[A'isha]

Leaving all other issues aside, after having heard and digested all the evidence and arguments pro and con for the validity or non-validity of Obama's COLB document, am I correct in assuming that you would be willing to say with one hundred percent certitude, that the COLB document is an authentic copy of the original birth certificate, and not a forgery with content altered or created digitally? Would you say that, could you say that with 100 percent certitude????

I defer to the State of Hawaii on that.

 

[Arisia]

...

If you want the certainty to change, offer actual valid evidence.

Good luck getting anything approaching that out of a birther... or a troll.

 

[Robert Prey]

Another question for Ant Pogo.

I believe it was Ant Pogo who cited an "innocent" explanation for layers appearing in Obama's COLB as an instance of an automated OCR process (since discredited) and cited computer "expert" Nathan Goulding's article in the National Review. Would you now admit that article was in error and also after viewing his bio listed below, would you classify this man as a computer imaging "expert" via your own standards?????

Nathan Goulding

"Nathan Goulding is the Chief Technology Officer of National Review. He often goes by “Chaka” in NRO’s popular blog The Corner. While having never attended a class in computer science, he enjoys programming NRO’s web server from a glass-enclosed, temperature-controlled, mantrapped, video-monitored network command center at an undisclosed location.

He likes to spend his free time relaxing on his back porch, sipping iced tea and Grey Goose while listening to Dvorak’s “American” String Quartet and Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in B-flat minor. He also enjoys listening to the vinyl LP records of Glenn Miller and Benny Goodman that were bestowed upon him as part of a rather substantial trust fund.

Despite being an avid swing dancer, Mr. Goulding still hasn’t met “Mrs. Right” – a girl who likes to have fun, yet carries a certain gravitas."

http://www.nationalreview.com/author/22613/bio

 

[Robert Prey]

I defer to the State of Hawaii on that.

Oh, so you couldn't give a 100 percent endorsement of your own claim. Thank you. It may be a dodge, but a sincere one. I expect the same from the other guy.

 

[A'isha]

I believe it was Ant Pogo who cited an "innocent" explanation for layers appearing in Obama's COLB as an instance of an automated OCR process (since discredited)

No, it hasn't been discredited. It's a process like this.

Actual forensic computer imaging expert Dr. Neal Krawetz explains it in some detail here.

and cited computer "expert" Nathan Goulding's article in the National Review. Would you now admit that article was in error

It wasn't in error.

and also after viewing his bio listed below, would you classify this man as a computer imaging "expert" via your own standards?????

He's not testifying to anything based on any computer imaging expertise. He simply reproduced how layers are created when a document is scanned to PDF, and made that example document with layers freely available for download.

 

[A'isha]

Oh, so you couldn't give a 100 percent endorsement of your own claim.

It's not my claim. It's the State of Hawaii's claim. And they say it's 100% genuine.

 

[000063]

No, "a successful rebuttal" is "sophomoric twaddle".

I thought it was "Baloney!"

Baloney.

Okay, I now believe you are a troll. Well done. Had everyone going.

 

[000063]

Prediction

Robert will return and conduct a 'fringe reset', he will post like the last week never happened and all his points haven't been smashed and his trollism exposed

I think that is a pretty safe bet. In many ways RP reminds me of BAChooser in that regards.

A Simple Question For Jay Utah and Ant Pogo:

Leaving all other issues aside, [proceeds to do exactly that].

Hans, please collect your no-Prize at the front desk.

 

[JayUtah]

A Simple Question For Jay Utah and Ant Pogo:

Leaving all other issues aside, ...

No. We have asked you dozens of questions about those "other issues" which you brought up and then refused to discuss. Don't now try to change the direction of the line of reasoning you followed after it has failed.

Answer our questions first.

...am I correct in assuming that you would be willing to say with one hundred percent certitude...

This is the same burden-of-proof shifting stunt you tried in the JFK thread. I didn't play your game then and I'm not playing it now.

Now answer my questions regarding your pending line of reasoning, or concede it.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh, so you couldn't give a 100 percent endorsement of your own claim. Thank you. It may be a dodge, but a sincere one. I expect the same from the other guy.

It's not a "dodge" to resist a clumsy ploy to shift the burden of proof. You tried that before. You laid out a case based on allegedly expert testimony, it got absolutely shredded, and instead of dealing with the refutation, you tried to shift the argument over to your opponents and demand that they prove or assert some counterclaim. When people rightly pointed out that you were trying to abandon your burden of proof, you also there tried to claim people were dodging.

Now either you can answer my questions regarding your pending line of reasoning, or you can concede it. Which will it be?

 

[R.A.F.]

Hans, please collect your no-Prize at the front desk.

Not to take anything away from Hans, but I think anyone here that knows Robert's "M.O.", would have predicted the same.

I am kind of surprised that Robert "took the troll bait".

 

[TheRedWorm]

It's not a "dodge" to resist a clumsy ploy to shift the burden of proof. You tried that before. You laid out a case based on allegedly expert testimony, it got absolutely shredded, and instead of dealing with the refutation, you tried to shift the argument over to your opponents and demand that they prove or assert some counterclaim. When people rightly pointed out that you were trying to abandon your burden of proof, you also there tried to claim people were dodging.

Now either you can answer my questions regarding your pending line of reasoning, or you can concede it. Which will it be?

Option 3: Ignore and start spewing more unfounded assertions.

 

[LSSBB]

I have seen some major absurdities in my time but this birther lunacy even trumps the truthers and the Apollo cters for its inane contortions

It's the Son of Swiftboat. They know they have no leg to stand in, the whole point is to stir up the Cloud of Controvery and move the poll needle enough.

 

[sts60]

It's not a "dodge" to resist a clumsy ploy to shift the burden of proof. You tried that before. You laid out a case based on allegedly expert testimony, it got absolutely shredded, and instead of dealing with the refutation, you tried to shift the argument over to your opponents and demand that they prove or assert some counterclaim. When people rightly pointed out that you were trying to abandon your burden of proof, you also there tried to claim people were dodging.

Now either you can answer my questions regarding your pending line of reasoning, or you can concede it. Which will it be?

Or he could explain his un-American fawning over hereditary nobility, or his anti-American contempt for democracy, states' rights, and democracy.

Or at least he could try to decide which of his mutually self-contradictory statements he actually believes.

But then again, I'm agreeing more strongly with the idea that he's simply trolling.

As far as real birthers - not simply people saying stuff on an Internet forum to get attention - sometimes I wonder idly if their track record of abysmal failure bugs them. Probably not; committed conspiracy loons are rarely deterred by their own incompetence and irrelevance.

 

[kookbreaker]

No, it hasn't been discredited.

Just when did RP post anything that might even have been an attempt to discredit the method? All I've seen is 'baloney baloney! BALONEEEEEY!! from him.

Did he just decide it was discredited and didn't even bother to tell anyone else?