Whew, I am still stuck back at epsilon. Do you want me to copy and paste this and do a post???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

The method is mathematically sound, since – if the probabilities for each event are agreed, and are independent of one another – it is appropriate to take their product as the probability that all of the events will occur simultaneously on a single document.

Unfortunately, as I have demonstrated, neither of your assumptions are valid.

Like it or not, this technique has been successfully used in court, and it is an accepted method of establishing whether a forgery or fraud is present.

While the technique might be valid in certain circumstances, it has clearly been egregiously misapplied here in a grossly incompetent manner which relies on a blatantly biased and demonstrably dishonest investigation.

Rather than tediously answering the rather limp rejections of my individual probabilities that the head posting makes, I refer readers to http://www.moncktononline.com for an explanation of the significance of the errors, such as the impossibility of scanning in a paper document and then being able to move a portion of that document around on its own separate layer.

Adding to the inanity doesn’t really help the credibility of your pseudo-analysis—just sayin’…

One understands that political prejudice may have obtruded in the head posting, but using standard probability theory is more reliable because it objectivizes the investigation of government-level frauds such as this one.

Since every element of this analysis relies on a demonstrably biased investigation by dishonest frauds and poseurs with no relevant expertise (like yourself), and, furthermore, both yourself and the Maricopa CCCP have blatant political prejudices backed by enormous cognitive dissonances one understands that your entire analysis is nothing but a load of puerile crap.

daft |daft|
adjective informal
silly; foolish : don’t ask such daft questions.
• crazy : have you gone daft?
• [ predic. ] ( daft about) infatuated with : we were all daft about him.
ORIGIN Old English gedæfte [mild, meek,] of Germanic origin; related to Gothic gadaban ‘become or be fitting.’

Since these two possibilities encompass all of the possible outcomes, we know that they must satisfy the equation p(fake)+p(daft)=1.

Registrar’s signature-stamp all on one electronic layer, allowing it to be moved about in the data-file: 100:1 against. This is actually impossible, but it’s Be Nice to Soetoro Week.

The real question that needs to be answered is, “could this be the result of an algorithm” and, if so, what are the chances that such an algorithm was used. Since the registrar’s signature stamp was, well, stamped on the original (assuming it was legit) instead of printed on, there would be many qualitative and quantitative differences from the rest of the document which could be recognized by an algorithm. This is entirely probable and could be tested by scanning (with as many different combinations of hardware, software, and settings as possible) a printed document with a signature stamped on it. However, the only dispositive result from this sort of test would be if the stamp showed up on a single layer—proving that it was possible. Another thread (see “World Famous Brazilian Expert Examines Long Form”) details how the opinion on one of the pioneers of mixed rastar compression algorithms is that all of the artifacts seen in the LFBC are consistent with compression techniques that are known to be implemented. The probability that this is the result of an algorithm rather than a human forger is very nearly 1—let’s call it 1-epsilon where epsilon is small. There are no extant pdfs where a forger has used this and we can safely say that there are likely to be a great many scanned documents in which a signature stamp was separated from other elements via algorithm, so based on the estimated number of such scans we can determine the number of forged documents that would lead us to suspect no hits in the given number of trials at a 95% confidence level and thus estimate the value of epsilon.

So this tells us that the current probability that Mr. Monckton is daft is: (1-epsilon)

Registrar’s date-stamp ditto: 100:1 (again, in truth impossible).

The same arguments apply, but now there is an additional condition: that we need an algorithm which not only separates the date-stamp and the sig-stamp from the rest, but from each other as well. Again, since there are noticeable qualitative differences in the two, this is entirely plausible—what it isn’t, however, is independent of the first condition—in fact, any argument which involves the hardware and software used is dependent on all of the others. Since a genuine expert has given an opinion that none of the artifacts are inconsistent with algorithmic processing and this isn’t an independent event, we’re still at a 1-epsilon probability that the LFBC is not a forgery, but now we must reduce our estimate of epsilon to conform to the number of documents that have two different types of stamps on separate layers. Using a standard birther technique*, I will reduce the number of such documents by 50%.

Current probability that Mr. Monckton is daft: (1-[redefined]epsilon)

* “making it up”—the most common way for a birther to establish a “fact” or statistic.

Multiple 1-bit monochrome layers and one 8-bit color layer: 60:1. Experts twice found no such pattern in 600 file-optimization programs: I allow for 10 anomalous programs to exist.

Another algorithm—in this case 600 combinations of software and settings (I’m assuming that the same hardware was used) is a minuscule portion of the parameter space and it is trivial to design an algorithm which would exhibit this result. In addition, there is no reason given why a human forger would do this, so it is evidence that a human wasn’t involved. We’ll be generous and suppose that this naive analysis yields a probability of epsilon that it is evidence of forgery which brings us to:

Current probability that Mr. Monckton is daft: (1-epsilon)^2

Lavishly funded bureaucracy uses wonky typewriter: 10:1.

Since there is no evidence that the typewritten information in the image is atypical for a standard 1960s device (as has been demonstrated by, for instance, John Woodman), the chance that (nonexistent) evidence proves forgery is zero, but let’s just say it is less than epsilon again.

Current probability that Mr. Monckton is daft: (1-epsilon)^3

Human error: Certificate number out of sequence 25:1;

All known contemporary Hawai’ian birth certificates are numbered consistent with the hypothesis that monthly batches for each hospital were sorted alphabetically by last name before being stamped. Since there is no other theory consistent with the numbering of these certificates (even if we exclude President Obama’s), this is no evidence of forgery whatsoever, but we’ll throw in another epsilon…

Current probability that Mr. Monckton is daft: (1-epsilon)^4

incorrect birth date of father 40:1;

Since the date on the birth certificate is one of at least two different dates shown on other documents, none of which are definitive, the most we can say is that President Obama’s father used more than one birthday. Since a forger wouldn’t have any additional information and we don’t have any reason to prefer the date used over other extant dates, there is no chance that this is evidence of forgery… but we’ll throw in another epsilon anyway.

Current probability that Mr. Monckton is daft: (1-epsilon)^5

use of “African” contrary to written form-filling rules and 20 years before the term came into common use 25:1;

Contrary to your statement, there are no enforced “form-filling rules”—someone (probably Dr. Dunham or Mr. Obama) would have been asked their race and the person filling out the form (probably a nurse) would have written what they were told. Since one of the possible races listed on the most recent Kenyan census at the time was “African”, and Mr. Obama was not a “Negro” (a term which referred to what is now known as African-Americans, not people of African descent in general), this is perfectly consistent with a legitimate birth certificate—let’s call it epsilon again.

Current probability that Mr. Monckton is daft: (1-epsilon)^6

miscoded statistical data 25:1 (official government estimate).

Since the evidence that the data is “miscoded” is based on the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse (M-CCCP) claim regarding the 1961 manual and it has been demonstrated that the manual they showed came from nearly a decade later and a 1961 manual was located and did not say what the M-CCCP claimed, this is only evidence of malfeasance by the M-CCCP, but we’ll consider that this faux “miscoding” admits a possibility of epsilon of being evidence of forgery anyway.

Current probability that Mr. Monckton is daft: (1-epsilon)^7

White halo around letters 10:1;

Another claim dependent on the algorithm—i.e. not independent and, according to a world-class expert in the field, entirely consistent with algorithmic processing. Shall we say… epsilon?

Current probability that Mr. Monckton is daft: (1-epsilon)^8

chromatic aberration absent 100:1 (actually impossible).

Ditto.

Current probability that Mr. Monckton is daft: (1-epsilon)^9

Other identity documents: Anomalously worded abstract on short-form birth certificate 100:1;

The form and information on the COLB is consistent with other contemporary forms (it was issued in 2007) and the information has been repeatedly confirmed by the Hawai’i DoH—move along, nothing to see here… but we’ll give Mr. Monckton another epsilon ‘cuz we’re nice.

Current probability that Mr. Monckton is daft: (1-epsilon)^10

two-digit year on selective service stamp against DoD written rules 100:1 (actually impossible: no two-digit example other than that of Kenya’s “son of the soil” is known);

Since it is nearly certain that a large sample of contemporary Selective Service stamps were not obtained and due to the fact that the stamp may well have had a fixed “19″ with a replaceable slug for the last two digits (even a birther should be able to figure out why), and excessive wear or uneven inking could easily explain this so-called anomaly, we can assume that the probability of this being evidence of forgery is once again less than epsilon.

Current probability that Mr. Monckton is daft: (1-epsilon)^11

non-citizen of Connecticut holds CT Social Security Number 100:1.

As the Social Security Administration says that the “state” numbering was merely for internal convenience (before computers) and is not necessarily valid, not to mention the fact that President Obama’s zip code could be converted into a Connecticut zip via the transposition of a “0″ and a “9″, this doesn’t give us any more than another epsilon.

Current probability that Mr. Monckton is daft: (1-epsilon)^12

There are many other errors, but these suffice.

I quite agree.

Defenders of Mr. Community Organizer say each error could have just happened by accident. I mean, it’s government form-filling, right?

No, the problem is that most of these “accidents” are little more than evidence of algorithms or standard operating procedure and none of the probabilities you’ve given have any justification whatsoever—you pretty much just pulled them out of your backside…

But here’s where the math comes in. If each error is a genuine accident,

In fact, none of these artifacts are accidents or in any way remarkable…

the errors are independent events,

This is a facially invalid assumption—all of the algorithmic events are dependent on each other and none of the probability estimates are valid for the reasons I’ve given.

so the probabilities of each error are multiplied together to determine the probability that all occurred in one document.

*sigh* Okay, we’ll use your method with the more accurate probabilities I’ve given…

Thus the odds against all of these errors occurring in a single document except by design are 1 in 100 x 100 x 10 x 10 x 25 x 40 x 25 x 25 x 10 x 100 x 100 x 100 x 100.

In my opinion, the particulars of this analysis are so naive that the only conceivable conclusion is that a person who believes that any of these elements is evidence of fraud (let alone credible evidence) is almost certainly daft. Let’s consider three different values for epsilon: 0.01 (Mr. Monckton’s 1 in 100); a more reasonable 0.000001 (it’s a one in a million shot, but Mr. Monckton may not be daft…); and finally the realistic value—arbitrarily small.

Accordingly, the probability that Mr. Obama’s birth narrative is in substance true is no better than 1 in 62,500,000,000,000,000,000, or 0.0000000000000000000016. That probability is what we mathematicians describe as “vanishingly different from zero.”

First off, as a mathematician (I got my phd at Duke in 2004), I would like to ask you not to describe yourself as one of us—not only is your “analysis” naive, ignorant claptrap, but you seem to think that a woefully imprecise term like “vanishingly different from zero” is the sort of thing a mathematician would say instead of a tell that you are nothing but a poseur…

Let’s get to the numbers—the probability of Mr. Monckton being daft, if you recall, is greater than (1-epsilon)^13, but what does this mean? If we let epsilon equal Mr. Monckton’s 1 in 100, this yields an 88% chance that he is daft—not very good odds for him, but not very accurate either. If we use a more realistic value of 0.000001, we get a 99.9987% chance of daftness which is much better, but doesn’t really approach the reality that anyone who arrived at Mr. Monckton’s probability estimates has demonstrated a distinct lack of critical thinking ability. If we accept that someone who was honest and competent would not claim any of Mr. Monckton’s 13 “anomalies” as evidence of forgery, we can take the limit as epsilon approaches zero and we find that, in fact, the probability that Mr. Monckton is daft approaches unity (that’s 1 to daft pseudo-mathematicians…).

Don’t be misled by the simplicity of the method. It’s simple but sound. The result is solid.

Yes, the result is clearly solid—you are a daft nincompoop with little to no critical thinking ability.

The probability that the certificate is false is 1 minus the probability that it is genuine. Any mathematician would have to agree under oath that if the odds against each error have been fairly stated, and if the errors are genuinely independent of one another, then it is very, very nearly certain that the “birth certificate” is a forgery.

However, no mathematician worth his salt would grant that any of your odds are fairly stated and, in addition, it is obvious that several of the events aren’t independent. You really shouldn’t be surprised that the garbage that you put into your methodology produced an even bigger load of garbage as output. Certainly such would be obvious to any honest person with the intelligence you claim.

Here is what you can do about it. Write by Return Receipt Requested to the head of the Secret Service and demand an investigation into the forged “birth certificate.” When you get no reply, write again by Return Receipt Requested, giving the Secret Service two weeks to reply.

Good luck with that.

When you still get no reply, apply to your Federal District Court for judicial review of the administrative decision of the Secret Service to refuse to do its job. It has a specific remit to investigate the authenticity of identification documents.

Your ignorance of the Constitutionally mandated process by which presidential eligibility is determined is about what I would expect from someone who repeatedly makes false claims of being a member of the House of Lords…

The courts cannot legitimately deny standing to any citizen seeking an order to tell the Secret Service to get on with its work rather than sullenly crossing the street, looking the other way, shutting its eyes, blocking its ears and singing “la-la-la” in a hysterical monotone.

I’m not a lawyer, but even I can see several things egregiously wrong with your thesis…

Nor can the courts avoid examining the evidence that the “birth certificate” is forged, for that is the very heart of the case. This route would overcome most of the procedural difficulties that ballot challengers have faced. Give it a try. Otherwise it’s four more years of The Amateur. The United States as we know it and love it would not survive that.

Judge Malihi in Georgia examined the evidence that President Obama’s LFBC was forged and came to the conclusion that none of the witnesses were credible and that the “evidence” had little to no probative value. This was just before he ruled in favor of the empty chair which the birthers were fighting. Fortunately, the current odds are about 6:1 in favor of President Obama’s re-election because the world as we know it wouldn’t likely survive the crash landing that would be the inevitable result of Mitt Romney trying to pilot the US economy…

Your panties never get in a wad, cause you go commando. (they would just get in the way)

TIP: Get male briefs and turn them backward.

Just cause dem “scary white people” be going after yous darky hero, you shouldn’t let dem get yous panties in a wad.

While I completely disagree with your assertions, you have a penchant for politeness, which is quite refreshing and a quality that is sadly lacking in most conversations with Birthers. So I do hope that you come back and participate in the conversation here from time to time.

That being said, I will keep this initial post short and simply echo Squeeky’s reply to you, above. The only point I will stress further is that I found the “odds” that you assigned each characteristic to be quite amusing. Surely, you are aware that every one of your assumptions is purely speculative in nature and mostly lack a proper quantitative basis for assigning the probabilities you came up with. So, beyond the fallacy of applying multiplicative combinations, which Squeeky addressed above, each of your assumptions are baseless to begin with.

You may write and speak well. However, your attempt here at mathmatical conjecture is baseless and unsound.

Your method of measuring probabilities is correct to the extent that 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 is the method of measuring the chance of an event such as “flipping heads” on a coin three times in a row.

Where your analysis goes off into Mathematical Wonderland is NOT so much in the odds that you lay on each event, which are a separate difficulty, but your in very choice of what constitutes an “event.”

Assume one were one to find an Image of Mona Lisa on the Internet which had a mustacium , a full beard, and a wart upon the end of her nose. Here is a Moncktonion Analysis.

Odds of painter, who relied upon patronage for a living, painting in Mona Lisa’s mustache: 1000 to 1.

Odds of painter, who relied upon patronage for a living, painting in Mona Lisa’s facial hair, to wit, a full beard: 1000 to 1.

Odds of painter, who relied upon patronage for a living, painting in Mona Lisa’s ugly nose wart: 1000 to 1.

Therefore, 1/1000 x 1/1000 x 1/1000 = 1 in 1,000,000,000 (1 in a billion) chance that the Image represents a legitimate da Vinci.

=======

Where one would be going astray in the above analysis is NOT in the multiplying of numbers, or even in the arbitrary assigning of odds, but instead in the application of the term “event” to multiple artifacts within the Image.

If the painting is a forgery, then it does not become more or less of a forgery by this method. For one thing, not all the “artifacts” are being analyzed, which means some events are being ignored. With coin flips, there are two possibilities, heads and tails. The “event’ of heads is being measured against the total number of possible outcomes. Does your Method accomplish this??? Let us continue the Moncktonion Analysis to see how it holds up as a valid method.

Odds that Mona Lisa was bald. 1,000 to 1 AGAINST.

Odds that Mona Lisa had no lips: 1,000 to 1 AGAINST

Odds that Mona Lisa had no nose, for the holding of warts: 1,000 to 1 AGAINST.

Factoring in these odds, 1000/1 times 3, we now get back “1″

Let us now go “1″ further.

Odds that Mona Lisa had no face: 1,000,000 to 1 AGAINST = 1,000,000/1 x 1 or, 1,000,000 to 1 against the Mona Lisa being a forgery.

Now, must we admit the conclusion that there is a million to one chance AGAINST the Image being a phony da Vinci creation??? Naturlich, one could do the same thing with the Birth Certificate Image.

Perhaps your method just needs further refinement???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Rather than tediously answering the rather limp rejections of my individual probabilities that the head posting makes, …

There is a near 100% probability that your pompous assertions are bollocks. Why? Principally, because the Hawaii DOH, who issued the primary document, attests to the fidelity of the reproduction, as you well know.

Inasmuch as the issuing authority has attested to the faithfulness of the reproduction, it could only be a “forgery” if the agency itsself issued a forged document. This would be akin to the Royal Mint issuing a counterfeit five-pound note. Utter bollocks.