Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Border Reiver]

Mr. Strunk is a little late, given that he's trying to state that the POTUS is inelligble to be on the ballot - after his re-election.

Also, where in the name of all that is holy has the POTSuS given aid and comfort to al-Quaeda? Does he send cards to the funerals?

 

[JayUtah]

Mr. Strunk is a little late, given that he's trying to state that the POTUS is inelligble to be on the ballot - after his re-election.

The Electoral College has not yet voted. In a certain sense, theirs is the only ballot that really counts. Hence eligibility to be on their ballot will be a going concern until Dec. 15 when the Electoral College casts its votes.

Also, where in the name of all that is holy has the POTSuS given aid and comfort to al-Quaeda? Does he send cards to the funerals?

Oh you know: if you don't support the Birthers, then the terrorists win. It's not enough, in Strunk's particular flavor of Birtherism, to claim that Obama merely wasn't born in Hawaii. In his world Obama has to be an odious enemy of the state, planted by enemies to destroy the country from within.

Strunk also makes up his own rules for what constitutes natural-born citizenship. Therefore his cause fails immediately as a matter of law. Plus, if I'm correct in thinking he cannot file in New York courts, then even an application for Order to Show Cause will fail as a matter of procedure.

He offers, as usual, no legal theory for setting aside the certification of the Hawaii registrar -- just vague, unsupported accusations of forgery.

 

[Robert Prey]

Lord Monckton's Math Confirmed

LSU Math Professor Confirms Lord Monckton's Math

One chance in sextillion the BC is real.

http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/11/DelzellAffidavit.pdf

 

[Loss Leader]

LSU Math Professor Confirms Lord Monckton's Math

One chance in sextillion the BC is real.

http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/11/DelzellAffidavit.pdf

Nobody is arguing that the man did the multiplication wrong. The argument is over what numbers he multiplied and why. This math professor vouches for the easiest step while specifically stating that he has no idea whether anything else done up until that step was correct.

"I am the King of England."

- "No, you're not."

"I do so have ten fingers!"

*"As a mathematician, I can verify he counted his fingers correctly."

 

[JayUtah]

LSU Math Professor Confirms Lord Monckton's Math

But not the assumptions on which it is based. The affidant mathematician agrees with what we've all been saying: that the correctness of Monckton's final result depends heavily on the correctness of his assumptions regarding the probability of facts in dispute. The affidant makes it plain that he has not investigated those facts nor can he confirm Monckton's estimates for their probabilities. He endorses Monckton's findings only to the text that he acknowledges Monckton has also clearly labeled his results as conditional probabilities based on disputed estimates.

If I take two cookies out of the cookie jar, I can correctly derive the number of cookies remaining by subtracting two from the number previously in the jar. If I didn't know that number, or got it wrong, then my answer is still wrong regardless of my having done the arithmetic correctly. It's wrong because the correct method was applied to unreliable, unknown, or estimated results.

Saying that something has been reasoned correctly from first principles does not prove that the first principles are themselves correct. You have failed not only to do that, but you have also failed even to understand why that was necessary.

I'm obliged to quote the father of modern computation:

"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' [...] I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." (Charles Babbage. Passages from the Life of a Philosopher, 1864)​

Monckton's pseudo-statistical conclusions are irrelevant because they're based on numbers he pulled out of thin air. That something else was computed from them according to proper equations remains irrelevant. Your affidant even says as much, right there in the affidavit. He is unwilling or unqualified to investigate the merits of the claims to which probabilities are being arbitrarily assigned. Unlike the affidant, we have investigated the dependent claims on their merits, and you have been utterly unable to address those refutations.

 

[Robert Prey]

But not the assumptions on which it is based. The affidant mathematician agrees with what we've all been saying: that the correctness of Monckton's final result depends heavily on the correctness of his assumptions regarding the probability of facts in dispute. The affidant makes it plain that he has not investigated those facts nor can he confirm Monckton's estimates for their probabilities. He endorses Monckton's findings only to the text that he acknowledges Monckton has also clearly labeled his results as conditional probabilities based on disputed estimates.

If I take two cookies out of the cookie jar, I can correctly derive the number of cookies remaining by subtracting two from the number previously in the jar. If I didn't know that number, or got it wrong, then my answer is still wrong regardless of my having done the arithmetic correctly. It's wrong because the correct method was applied to unreliable, unknown, or estimated results.

Saying that something has been reasoned correctly from first principles does not prove that the first principles are themselves correct. You have failed not only to do that, but you have also failed even to understand why that was necessary.

I'm obliged to quote the father of modern computation:

"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' [...] I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." (Charles Babbage. Passages from the Life of a Philosopher, 1864)​

Monckton's pseudo-statistical conclusions are irrelevant because they're based on numbers he pulled out of thin air. That something else was computed from them according to proper equations remains irrelevant. Your affidant even says as much, right there in the affidavit. He is unwilling or unqualified to investigate the merits of the claims to which probabilities are being arbitrarily assigned. Unlike the affidant, we have investigated the dependent claims on their merits, and you have been utterly unable to address those refutations.

You mean there really was a birth certificate that Gov.Ambercromie was unable to affirm?????

 

[JayUtah]

You mean there really was a birth certificate that Gov.Ambercromie was unable to affirm?????

Do not put words in my mouth. I showed how the affidavit supports the prevailing interpretation here of Monckton's claims. You clearly have no answer. Therefore your statistical argument remains refuted.

 

[thedopefishlives]

You mean there really was a birth certificate that Gov.Ambercromie was unable to affirm?????

Not was, Robert. Is. Oh, and by the way: The Governor of Hawaii, like everyone else in the world except for the Registrar of Vital Statistics for the State of Hawaii, is irrelevant to the topic of "affirming" said birth certificate. The fact that the Governor was not able to view records which he is legally barred from viewing is no cause for concern.

 

[Border Reiver]

You mean there really was a birth certificate that Gov.Ambercromie was unable to affirm?????

Yes, the Governor of the State is NOT an official authorized by Hawaiian law to access state records that are not his, therefore he cannot just go, "Today I will look at 'x' records. No reason." People have an interest in the privacy of their own information, and unauthorized persons are not allowed to rummage around through such information.

I know from previous threads that you seem to grasp this idea of legal rights, why do you want to ignore Mr. Obama's right to privacy. He's already provided the information to the registrar for elections and had it accepted, twice.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You mean there really was a birth certificate that Gov.Ambercromie was unable to affirm?????

Could you highlight the sentence in the post you were quoting, about Moncktons Madeup Numbers, that you think states the above? I think it would be useful to know how you got to that conclusion before confirming or denying.

 

[abaddon]

You mean there really was a birth certificate that Gov.Ambercromie was unable to affirm?????

Straw man.

The affidavit states in summary:

1. The procedure used is appropriate and has been correctly applied.
2. The result obtained is contingent on the findings of the "forensic" analysis of the documentation experts used.
3. These findings were not examined at all by the affidant.

The findings of your forensic "experts" has been demolished here in this very thread.

Regardless of correct technique, starting out with the wrong premises guarantees the failure of the probabalistic calculation.

 

[KDLarsen]

I don't know why you're bothering. Robert brought up the exact same angle three months ago, recieved the exact same answers, and has apparently managed to forget all about it since then.

 

[Robert Prey]

Straw man.

The affidavit states in summary:

1. The procedure used is appropriate and has been correctly applied.
2. The result obtained is contingent on the findings of the "forensic" analysis of the documentation experts used.
3. These findings were not examined at all by the affidant.

The findings of your forensic "experts" has been demolished here in this very thread.

Regardless of correct technique, starting out with the wrong premises guarantees the failure of the probabalistic calculation.

The premise of science is replication. 'Demolished" is an assertion unsupported by any fact. Science says, if you cannot replicate a thing, that thing is not worthy of belief.

One in Sextillion -- that's the odds the COLB is real.

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes, the Governor of the State is NOT an official authorized by Hawaiian law to access state records that are not his, therefore he cannot just go, "Today I will look at 'x' records. No reason." People have an interest in the privacy of their own information, and unauthorized persons are not allowed to rummage around through such information.

I know from previous threads that you seem to grasp this idea of legal rights, why do you want to ignore Mr. Obama's right to privacy. He's already provided the information to the registrar for elections and had it accepted, twice.

Nonsense. The Occam's Razor explanation for Ambercrombie's failure to make good on his promise to confirm the existence of the original BC, is, that it simply does not exist.

 

[Multivac]

Nobody is arguing that the man did the multiplication wrong. The argument is over what numbers he multiplied and why. This math professor vouches for the easiest step while specifically stating that he has no idea whether anything else done up until that step was correct.

"I am the King of England."

- "No, you're not."

"I do so have ten fingers!"

*"As a mathematician, I can verify he counted his fingers correctly."

Most humans only have eight fingers...........and two thumbs, of course.

 

[Straw Man]

Nonsense. The Occam's Razor explanation for Ambercrombie's failure to make good on his promise to confirm the existence of the original BC, is, that it simply does not exist.

You've failed to grasp the concept of law that prevents Governor Abercrombie from looking at whatever records he wishes. He is bound by the same laws as everyone else. Simply being Governor does not mean he can look at the private information of anyone he pleases.

 

[JayUtah]

The premise of science is replication.

No, Robert. You're not a scientist and we've had this discussion many times before. Lord Monckton didn't replicate anything or make and replicable claims. When you simply pull numbers out of the air, that is consummately non-replicable. In fact, that sort of subjective guesswork is exactly what the scientific method is meant to forestall.

One in Sextillion -- that's the odds the COLB is real.

Nope. It's just supposition dressed up to look like math.

 

[JayUtah]

Nonsense. The Occam's Razor explanation for Ambercrombie's failure to make good on his promise to confirm the existence of the original BC, is, that it simply does not exist.

Expressly not. Your explanation requires a vast criminal conspiracy for which you can supply no proof -- only increasingly desperate conjecture. It not only fails to be the simplest explanation, it is colossally complex.

The real explanation requires only the Hawaii statutes clearly on record and amply adjudicated. Hence there are no loose ends. Hence it is the simplest explanation.

"Simplest" in William of Occam's writings means the explanation that involves the fewest unproven, possibly untestable premises. You keep throwing around terms that allude to the philosophy of science, but you cannot prove that you actually understand what any of them means. And since you are not any sort of scientist, no one is obliged to consider your interpretation.

 

[Border Reiver]

Nonsense. The Occam's Razor explanation for Ambercrombie's failure to make good on his promise to confirm the existence of the original BC, is, that it simply does not exist.

Nonsense - the simplest explanation is that the Governor cannot make good on his promise as it is prohibited by law.

 

[Dcdrac]

And the Hawian Authorities have testified it is a true certificate.