The Birther Banshee (or, “The Dianna” Screeches!!!)

The Dianna Demonstrates "The Obama Stomp" To An Uninterested Crowd

Wiki says about the Banshee:

An Irish feminine spirit, the banshee can appear in a variety of guises. Most often she appears as an ugly, frightening hag, but she can also appear as a stunningly beautiful woman of any age that suits her.  Although not always seen, her mourning call is heard, usually at night when someone is about to die and usually around woods.

In some parts of Leinster, she is referred to as the bean chaointe (keening woman) whose wail can be so piercing that it shatters glass. In Kerry in the southwest of Ireland, her keen is experienced as a “low, pleasant singing”; in Tyrone in the north, as “the sound of two boards being struck together”; and on Rathlin Island as “a thin, screeching sound somewhere between the wail of a woman and the moan of an owl.”

The thin screeching sound somewhere between the wail of a woman and the moan of an owl accurately describes the writings of Dianna Cotter, aka Freeper Danae, aka The Dianna.  Journalists have a concept known as the 5 W’s (and an H) which are regarded as the basics of information gathering:

  • Who is it about?
  • What happened?
  • Where did it take place?
  • When did it take place?
  • Why did it happen?
  • How did it happen?

Let’s examine an important excerpt from Cotter’s recent Pravda article, and see if she actually gathered any facts and  information and then arrived at a conclusion, or whether she simply applied her own conclusions to information:

Years before the 2008 election, Barack Obama was involved in efforts to amend the US Constitution to allow those who were born to parents who were not citizens to become President along with those born overseas. Those efforts have occurred several times in recent history, and all have failed. It must be intelligently asked why this was a concern at all for the then Senator.

There are two reasons for Obama’s concern. The first lay in Article 2 section 1 of the constitution which states: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,”.

Except for Barack Obama.

The second reason  for Obama’s concern lies in the Supreme Court of the United States case Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) 1875 which defines Natural Born Citizen:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

Has Cotter presented any evidence that Obama is concerned with Minor v. Hasppersett???  Birthers, including Cotter, are concerned with the case.  Either dishonestly, or through gross ignorance or stupidity, they tend to believe the case was precedent for defining natural born citizenship.  However, 99.9999% of lawyers and judges disagree and believe the case left the definition of natural born citizenship open. This belief is based upon the sentences the pseudo-journalist Cotter left out of the above case excerpt. Once again, lets fill in the part the Birthers leave out:

These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

Page 88 U. S. 168

parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

First, we can simply read the words of the case for ourselves to see that the Minor v. Happersett judges left the issue open. If we doubt our own ability to read these 3 simple sentences, we can see what an actual court said about this and look at Ankeny v. Governor (found in the website header as The Case The “Two Citizen Parents” Birthers Just HATE!!!):

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

Notice how the Court put the full quotation from the case into their decision, whereas Journalist Cotter was quite happy to pre-edit the quote for her readers. Also note, that the Ankeny Court at footnote 12, further distinguished Minor from Obama’s situation:

[12] Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.

After understanding this, the rest of Cotter’s article becomes worthless. Journalists are supposed to start with a clear and factual WHAT HAPPENED, and work their way to WHY DID IT HAPPEN.  Because you can’t figure out WHY something happened if you don’t know WHAT actually happened.

But Cotter didn’t bother to get her facts straight first, including an understanding of the applicable law. Instead, she started with a WHO that she dislikes, and a stupidly false WHY, to explain WHAT happened. Because, if Obama had no reason to be concerned about his eligibility status at any time, then all the reasons that Cotter gives for possible shenanigans becomes unnecessary. If two citizen-parents are an imaginary legal requirement, then her statement that  “Barack Obama was involved in efforts to amend the US Constitution to allow those who were born to parents who were not citizens to become President” is completely wrong.   She might as well have based her story on the crank legal theory that Americans do not have to pay income taxes because the 16th Amendment was never ratified – and that is why the Main Stream Media are ignoring Sheriff Joe and why Obama is concerned. Same difference.

Her stupidly false conclusion about WHAT the law is, has sent her, and anyone unlucky enough to have read her article, off into quagmire of illogical bull manure. The question arises is she really that stupid, or is she just very dishonest. My opinion is that she is very dishonest. She attends college and supposedly maintains a 4.o GPA. She writes articles in which the grammar and sentence structure is proper. She appears to have no reading-comprehension impairments.

I debated with her a few times on Free Republic before the Birthers there got terrified of me and had me banned. (See the Internet Article here, Free Republic Birthers Run In Panic-Stricken Terror From The Truth!!! – with pictures of the crying  Birthers.) So, she has been exposed to the true state of affairs regarding the law. There aren’t but a few legal cases which deal with this issue, and both sides know them well. She is not ignorant of either Wong Kim Ark (1898) or Ankeny v. Governor (2009). So, in my human opinion, she knows better. She just doesn’t want to tell the truth.

Expect further analysis of The Dianna. Like that moaning owl in the above definition of a Banshee, all she knows is WHO WHO WHO. For her, there is only one W. And when her story is about Obama, don’t expect journalism.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a still from The Cry of the Banshee (1970). Here is a review, and the site where I found the picture:

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 36 Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

60 responses to “The Birther Banshee (or, “The Dianna” Screeches!!!)

  • Mark Edward Gillar

    So do have an explanation as to why the one and the nine are missing from the selective service card of Barack Obama? It’s the only one missing the 19 out of hundreds that were looked at including some from the same post office the same week.

    Perhaps you can tell us why the 08 is shoved to far to the right despite a metal stop that should guarantee perfect placement?

    Oh wait, and I’m guessing you have an explanation as to why the US Selective Service HQ has sent this card out with two different DLN numbers?

    I’d love for you to cough up some facts that are believable. Feel free to write me.

    So birthers are terrified of you. I’m not!!! Come one my show and debate me. We will find out how much you actually know which I’m guessing is very little.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      Hi Mark Gillar!!!

      Well, I am fairly certain that you will meet people here who will go on your show, or perhaps RC will ask you to go on his show. As for me, I try to stay off the shows, even the friendly Anti-Birther and Obot ones.

      Now, as to your contention that the selective service record is fake, or has two different dln numbers, that is one reason why I would be reluctant to “debate” you because I could care less about some of that stuff. Because it is irrelevant. It is like debating a moon-landing denier on shadow angles of the astronauts foot on a photograph. Shadows and lighting anomalies happen all the time with photographs, and sometimes you can not ever expect to reconcile them unless you were actually in the place at the time that it happened. Luckily, with your selective service stamp question, we have some answers.

      As soon as I posted your comment, I did a brief google, and came up with Debbie Schlussel and this story from April 2011. From here:

      Then, I went to Obama Conspiracy Theories and searched her name, and got this from December 2008:

      which led to this on the update link in the article:

      where you find:

      Agent Coffman’s interpretation is ruined by his first assertion; that the first two digits of the number represented “the year of issue.” A simple phone call or e-mail to the SSS explicitly asking that question would have cleared up this misunderstanding. In response to an e-mail query, the following explanation was offered by the SSS:

      From: “Richard Flahavan”
      Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:09:51 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
      Subject: FW: SSS Document Locator Numbers

      Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:

      Facts will never trump speculation by conspiracy theorists. But the reality is the following:

      a. The 10-character Document Locator Number (DLN) was placed on Selective Service Registration Forms beginning prior to the establishment of our current Data Management Center on 31 August 1981.
      b. Prior to 1981, the DLN configuration was different from what is used today.
      c. At that time when Mr. Obama registered, the first three characters (089) indicated that the form was keyed in by one of the contract keying centers – in this case 089 equated to the Internal Revenue Service.
      d. Later, an 11th digit was added to the DLN just prior to Y2K to differentiate another decade.

      Thus, the first three characters of the DLN do NOT represent the year the form was keyed into the SSS registrant database, despite what some may hold dear.

      Richard S. Flahavan
      Associate Director, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs
      Selective Service System National Headquarters

      Agent Coffman was simply in error when he asserted the first two digits represented the year. In fact, the first three digits originally represented the data center at which the information was keyed into the database. The eleventh digit was added many years later as part of the database enhancement to support the Y2K transition.

      In other words, it took about 5 to 10 minutes to address the 2 DLN number theory, which frankly I had never heard of until you mentioned it. And, here it is 2012 when you are making this claim, when the answer has been out there since March 2009, or almost 3 years. On a radio debate, I never would have known any of this, or had time to find it. I would have been up Debate Doo-Doo Creek not because I was wrong and because you have a great argument, but because I had not clogged up my mind with nonsensical Birther myths.

      The several times that I have actually followed a Birther down some rabbit-hole, it always seems to end up this way. The Wonderful Proof Goes Poof!!! Which is the name of The Internet Article that I will turn this comment into. However, there are people on the Anti-Birther and Obot side who do have this stuff at their mental finger tips.

      And, I do not want to short-change you. Why don’t you get me a list of all these type things that you base your beliefs on. Just leave them here, and either me, or others will provide answers for you.

      Does that sound fair to you??? And I have edited my comment to add this:

      I am MOST INTERESTED in any ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Obama has committed forgery. I think the entire MSM and the whole Anti-Birther and Obot world would also be interested. If Sheriff Joe had any good real evidence of anything fishy, then I am also sure that would get a great deal of coverage. The Birthers’ problem is that such good, real, actual evidence is non-existent. You get rumors, like the duplicate DLN number, which seem to get discredited, and then get resurrected. You get experts analyzing online images, but you get nothing that says any information on the long form is incorrect. You get the Postman, with 20+ year old hearsay evidence and unclear memories, but you don’t get any sort of substantial evidence. Find some of that, and nobody will ignore you.

      Plus, please be assured that neither you, nor any other Birther, will be moderated here, or chased away for expressing your beliefs, like I was on Free Republic by the frightened Birthers. I even have pictures!!!

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • Mark E. Gillar

    First of all Squeeky,

    I’m glad you don’t chase those who disagree with you away. I was banned from Huffpo once just for disagreeing with one of their writers. It only took creating another account to get back in, but it was an inconvenience.

    I think Bill a.k.a. P.J. Foggy over at Fogbow will tell you that I treated him with respect when he was on my show. In fact we talked for a good 45 minutes after the interview was over. On a personal level, I like him. We differ greatly in the ideology we espouse, but that didn’t get in the way of us having a relatively pleasant conversation.

    Now on to the matters at hand. What you debunked in 5 minutes is something that has long been known. BTW, Dr. Conspiracy also erroneously believes that you can buy Official USPS Pica stamps on eBay which you cannot. Saying that all number #40 Pica sets are the same is like saying all #2 pencils are identical, but I digress.

    The letter from the Selective Service regarding the DLN number only explains that when Obama’s card was dated, the first two numbers were
    not indicative of the year it was processed. I made that mistake at first, but was quickly corrected and I accept the letter of explanation from SS.

    The issue that I vaguely referenced, was that the very same department that debunked the DLN date issue also sent out two, count them two,
    information requests on the same day with different DLN numbers listed in the computer for Barack Obama. There are other issues with the dates these requests were filled, but I’ll let you chew on the issue of the system having two DLN numbers for Barack Obama in the same day.

    As for the stamp issue, it is in no way similar to the moon landing nonsense. These irregularities in the stamp will ultimately be used to convict someone, though most likely not Obama himself.

    Let’s review. Every selective service card reviewed by researchers has had a 4 digit date stamp for the year. Every single one of them. There is a good reason for that Squeek. The yearly date stamps came as a solid piece of rubber. They were not inserted into the USPS or USPO stamps one digit at a time.

    I would also like to point out that the stamp itself has a stop on one side that keeps the stamp from being pushed too far over and allows for perfect centering.

    Before we move on, please also note that the 8 in these Pica stamps is not perfectly symmetrical . The bottom of the 8 is a little thicker.

    Now let’s look at the stamp impression on Barack Obama’s selective service registration card. Only an 8 and a 0 for the year. Since the rubber stamps only came in four digit blocks, one would have had to intentionally cut the rubber insert in half. Researchers tried repeatedly with an official US Postal Stamp with the Official USPS pica inserts to recreate this impression and were unable to imprint an image that did not contain the one and the nine. If you look closely at the outer circle of the stamp you will see that outer circle is present indicating a rather flat application of the stamp on to the paper. In short, the postal worker who stamped the card did not stamp the card in such a way as to only pick up what was on the right side of the stamp.

    The top of the 8 which was actually the buttom before it cut away from the year 2008 and turned upside down, has unquestionably been shaved. Let’s face it. Good forgers are hard to find. So are official USPS Pica stamps made specifically and uniquely to government specifications. They are not available on eBay and you can’t buy them elsewhere on the internet. Sorry but Dr. C’s quick attempt to debunk this just showed how shallow his reseach actually was.

    This video which I suspect you’ve already seens explains how Barack Obama’s selective card was forged.

    I don’t see blatant evidence of a forgery as having anything in common with shadow issues from moon landing pics. There isn’t a single postal stamp on a selective service card that has been found to date with only
    two digits for the year. I found most of your comment very refreshing, but the moon landing stuff is not the least bit relevant. Missing a letter on the outer rings is relatively common, but missing numbers from the year stamp are nonexistent except for Mr. Obama’s card.

    Attempts to suggest these stamps are highly available are a joke. Think of the ramifications of people could buy their own postal stamps and backdate cancellations. I don’t have to debate this. The DOD specs are quite specific.

    While I’m sure many found the DLN info you posted helpful, I’ve already been apprised of this and you’re essentially debating a very old issue with the DLN number(s) on Obama’s SS registration card.

    As I’m sure you’re aware, failing to register for selective service on time disqualifies one from holding a position within the executive branch.

    This is therefore an important issue. No negative comparison to those who don’t believe man landed on the moon will make it go away.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter


      First, let me address the Moon Landing Denier photos because I believe the approach to that issue has relevance here. Assume that the alleged shadow anomalies or artifacts in the photos simply can not be explained. Does that mean:

      If there are unexplained anomalies or artifacts in the photos, then the moon landings never took place.

      Of course, not. There is a whole body of evidence which is not even addressed by the anomalies, even if they do exist. But, let’s make the situation even more complicated. Assume now that actual photos were scanned into a computer, and instead of viewing the actual photos, you are viewing an image of the photos. Does this in any way strengthen the If, then argument, to wit:

      If there are unexplained anomalies or artifacts in the scanned image of the photos, then the moon landings never took place.

      Again, of course not. In fact, this assertion is even more logically weak than the first. Yet, this type of image is what the Cold Case Posse is in the process of dissecting. So, when they cry, “Evidence! Evidence!”, I don’t pay it much attention. There is nothing that the Cold Case Posse is ever going to discover from analyzing the image on the Internet to see how it was assembled or put on the Internet. They are drilling in a dry hole. Is there any type of information that you could get from a scanned image which would prove that the original was forged? Because remember, you can’t date the ink or paper of an online image.

      I think that there is . For example, in the Bush Air National Guard papers and Rathergate, it was the presence of incongruous information that proved the documents a forgery. In that case, I think the type font used on the documents had not been invented at the time of the documents. Similarly, if on Obama’s long form, the name of the registrar was listed as Peter Rabbit, instead of Ukl Lee or whatever, then you would have some evidence to some degree that the document was not an authentic copy of an authentic document.

      But, even this would not prove that there wasn’t an authentic document, but only that the image does not appear to be of an authentic document. Because, what if Ukl Lee was drunk that day, and playing games, and signed his name as Peter Rabbit. This is not beyond the pale. My father used to do this all the time on FedEx and UPS packages, HIPAA notices, and anything else he thought it was stupid to put signatures on. Nobody ever questioned him, and still don’t to this day. He gets a big kick out of it.

      But, while the Drunk Ukl Lee scenario would be a stretch, would it be a stretch if somebody at the White House just wanted to tease the Birthers, and photo-shopped “Peter Rabbit” onto the document??? Or, to be less obvious and put a Smiley Face artifact onto it??? Or maybe just run it through OCR a few times, and then leave all the layers in??? Because these are the kinds of things that would make the online Image look funky, while still not meaning that the underlying image was a forgery.

      Returning to the main point, there is apparently no incongruous information on the images of long form image, the short form, or even the selective service document. On the SSR, the dates don’t match, but this does not mean:

      If the date of the signature and the postal stamp don’t match, then the document is a forgery.

      Obama could have written the wrong date, or some clerk at the Post Office could have forgotten to change the stamp, or assumed it had already been changed. As you noted, the argument has moved past this point. And past the circular postal dating stamp questions from Schlussel in 2008. Now, moving on to your response about the SSR. From that link in my first response, the article at Obama Conspiracy Theories noted that there was a 10 digit DLN, and an 11 digit DLN. I thought this was the two DLNs that you were talking about. If not, please fill me in on the proper details. Until then, I wonder if a person can logically say:

      If Obama’s SSR has 2 DLNs, then the document is a forgery.

      Again, I don’t think so. DLNs are assigned after a document is created, which means Obama’s SSR precedes the DLNs. How a document is treated within a government office doesn’t make it a either a forgery, or mean that it isn’t a forgery. It just seems to me to be totally irrelevant. I wonder how much of the current concern about the SSR is just Birther Inertia from Schlussel’s initial mistaken beliefs???

      Let me conclude by saying that I am a very skeptical person about documents and images on the Internet. I never thought that it would take a huge conspiracy for Obama to have a fake birth certificate. Maybe 2 people, his grandmother and a crooked clerk at the Hawaiian DOH. That, and who knows maybe $50???

      But, when to make it work, you have to start adding in the current Hawaii state government, the Republicans from Lingle’s term, the past Republican administration, people at the SSR offices, forgers galore, computer image builders, the Ayers, college admissions people, and all the people who have to remain quiet, etc. etc. etc., then it does become that huge conspiracy. Which mitigates against it being true.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • Reality Check

    It is funny that Mark Gillar mentioned the Blog Talk show with Foggy from last year. If you go over to his Blog Talk page you will see that the show with Foggy cannot be found because he only left it up for a day or two an then scrubbed it from the archive. When I asked Gillar why it never showed up in the archive he replied:

    R.C., The link should still work. uss-obamas-birth-certificate I didn’t delete it, but am not actively promoting it at this time either. My show is not the “birther show” it is the Tea Party Power Hour. The interview with Foggy will be put back on the page once a few more shows have taken place.

    The show was never placed back on his page and the link to the show is also dead because Gillar deleted it.

    I asked Gillar on his YouTube channel about why a hard core Birther like him was used for narration on the YouTube videos produced for the Cold Case Posse and why that didn’t show bias. He replied: “A voice-over person doesn’t have to be impartial. The person originally selected to do this work backed out. I filled-in when asked. Members of the team had heard Arpaio on my show and liked my voice. End of story.”

    However a few days later when he had Ben Shapiro on his radio show and Ben said he wasn’t buying into the Birther BS about the Selective Service crap Gillar said “”I am going to send you a video that I produced for Sheriff Joe Arpaio…”.

    So as you can see Gillar and the truth are not on speaking terms. He had John Woodman debate a bevy of Birthers and his show including Jerome Corsi and others. Gillar let the whiny Mara Zebest talk all over John Woodman. John caught Corsi and the rest in flat out lies but Gillar still maintains Woodman lost the debate. My advice would be to stay far away from Gillar. He is a liar as I have shown. Don’t waste a minute of time on his show. Even if you kick you his ass he will delete the show like a coward.

    • Mark E. Gillar

      Actually the show wasn’t scrubbed. It’s still there with a private designation. We both know Bill didn’t win that debate. I can assure you it hasn’t been deleted.

      Having seen your quote above, I guess I did say that I would bring it back up in a few days. Not bringing it back is most likely explained by the fact that my world doesn’t revolve around what goes on with the RC or Fogbow gang. Although, you people seem a little concerned with me lately. I can’t imagine why.

      You sir are welcome to come on my show anytime and see just how much of a coward I am. The gloves will come off this time. Don’t expect the courteous treatment I gave Bill. Speaking of Bill, he backed out of a debate with Corsi at the last minute, but I have never called him a coward for doing so. Let’s watch the name calling shall we? Wait a sec, that’s what you guys do at RC isn’t it? Attack the messenger and avoid the message?

      I have used the terms produced and narrated together and separately while describing my participation because I did both. Since I did the video screen captures under expert and CCP Commander direction, I guess you could say that I was the camera person too. Using a brand of logic that could only pass for logic on the left, you’re suggesting that I have to list both jobs every time I speak? What nonsense. As Johnny Carson once said of Michael Landon, he wrote, directed, starred in and sometimes played the little house on Little House On The Prairie. Does that mean when Landon went on a show and said I play the father on the show Little House On The Prairie he was lying? Of course not.

      Fogbow and RC seem very concerned that many of us had political opinions before we became involved in the birther issue. Yes, Denninger voted for Obama, Mara was a Hillary supporter and I voted Republican. Funny how having an opinion on politics automatically in their eyes disqualifies one from participation in this debate as if they are all a bunch of independent voters. Good Lord, what hypocrites. I guess RC and Fogbow would rather discuss anything but the facts of the BC, the SS registration, and the SSN. It doesn’t really matter. The criminal investigation moves forward. Arrests will be made. People will go to jail. No amount of whining on Fogbow or RC Radio will prevent that.

      As for me being a liar…LOL I went out of my way to let the world know that Bill had not been disbarred. He seemed grateful at the time. Oh well, I guess I’ll have to find another Obot friend.

      I know Woodman thinks he’s caught Corsi in lies, but to my satisfaction he didn’t come close to proving it. By the way, I told Woodman after the show that I wish I had done better controlling that debate. He wrote me that he was not upset with me. He did agree as do I that I could have done better.

      I’ve got an idea for RC Radio. Stick to the facts of the BC, the Selective Service Card, and the social security number.

      When I’ve seen mistakes on our side, I’ve been quick to correct them. Someone wrote me a few days ago stating that the ZIP code was wrong on Obama’s SS registration card. I told them I checked phone books, Polk directories and newspaper announcements and am confident that the ZIP on the SS registration card was correct. I also have said that I agree remnants of the seal are visible. Remember when all the Obots were saying everything could be explained by the use of OCR software?
      How many of them have come out and publicly admitted they were wrong?.

      One of the favorite human defense mechanisms has always been projection. Based on these groundless accusations that have been thrown at me, it would seem it still ranks up there.

      • Reality Check

        It is funny that you would defend Corsi. On your show Jerome Corsi repeated the lie about the 1955 Hawaii Medical Journal article by Charles G. Bennett and George Tokuyama I had a copy handy and confirmed John Woodman’s allegation that Corsi misquoted the article when he said that it discussed the timing of the numbering of birth certificates. Corsi said he would refer to the Bennett article and read John the quote but he never does. Corsi also tries to deflect the criticism by claiming he was only pointing out an anomaly that the Nordyke certificate numbers are lower than the Obama number. Yet the title of the very article where Corsi misquotes Bennett and Tokuyama is titled “Nordyke Numbers Expose Obama Document Fraud?”. On my show John also repeated a quote from Corsi on the Alex Jones program where he made the same accusation that this was proof of fraud.

        John then pointed out that the known birth certificates from August 1961 closely fit a pattern of alphabetical assignment of numbers except the Virginia Sunahara certificate. Corsi said something to the effect that “I have seen more birth certificates than you have” implying that he is in position of copies of additional certificates. He then says the numbers are all jumbled and that Hawaii should release the names and numbers of all the births from August 1961. These were two plays from Corsi’s standard playbook. First he alluded to sources only he knows about and no one else can see.
        Then he asked for Hawaii to release records they will never because it would directly violate their own records laws. It was around this point that Corsi left without even as much as saying saying goodbye.
        (to be continued)

        • Mark Edward Gillar

          I believe it was Corsi who said Bill had been disbarred. You seem to recall much from the interview, so again I hope you recall that I corrected that.

          As for the numbering sequence, John tried to imply on my show that the issues with Sunahara can be explained by the fact that she only lived a short time. Nellie Ristvedt who was also on the show that day did a great job of explaining why that didn’t matter. Woodman didn’t object and seemed in over his head discussing the issue with Ristvedt who has dedicated much time to reviewing the numbering issue.

          Because Obama publicly released his own records, he no longer has a right to privacy under Hawaiian law. I’m sure Nellie Vistvedt could clue you in if you’re not familiar with the exact law. She’s tried to clue in the HDOH but apparently following their own laws, policies, and procedures isn’t very important to them.

          I’m still not sure why the HDOH won’t release Virginia’s records to her brother Duncan. Seems kind of strange to me, but I’m sure you have an excuse ready for them.

      • Reality Check

        I have addressed the BC and other records many times on my show. Guess what you have never addressed? You have never discussed an actual crime that was committed and reported to the CCP. It concerns President Obama’s Selective Service records too. However, neither you nor the CCP have said a peep about it. Can you explain that? Can you explain why the CCP refused to talk to John Woodman? he offered to review his findings with them. Why didn’t the CCP mention what a real forensic document analyst, Ivan Zatkovich, had to say? You know, the one WND hired and submitted a report that never published at WND. Did they contact him?

        • Mark Edward Gillar

          Why didn’t you let me guess? I hate it when people say “guess what?” and then tell you the answer before you can respond. When that happens, you lose your opportunity to show them that you actually knew the answer. Again, I just hate that!

          As for the charges:

          Here’s a hint, I don’t know for sure, but I suspect forgery is on the list. Fraud probably will be too. Just guessing.
          Finally, I get to guess! Thank goodness I got that out of my system.

          Can I explain what? That the CCP isn’t going to state the charges until they formally charge someone? Do I really have to explain that? Has it occurred to you that the results of the investigation will dictate the exact charges that can be filed?

          As for John Woodman. Does he really have anything to add to what was in his book? I recall the team of experts on my show were not too impressed with John. I suppose it can be argued that if they would have given him more of a chance to talk, perhaps they would have been. Who knows? I know all three of them reviewed his work prior to the show.

          Speaking of things that need to be corrected. Hopefully you caught the part where mild-mannered Tom Harrison (One of only 3 well-behaved guests on the show that day in addition to John and Nellie) pointed out that statements in John’s book regarding Harrison’s work were incorrect. Notice I didn’t say John lied. I said he stated something that was incorrect. He might have very well believed it to be true before Tom corrected him.

          Now I’ll give you the same courtesy. You don’t deserve it after your first post, but that’s just the kind of guy I am. First of all, I’ve read the Zatkovich report. All of it. Not just the parts I wanted to see while ignoring the rest.

          I found it amusing that Zatkovich repeatedly refers to the white house website as instead of This is a harmless mistake and means nothing. I point it out because if we follow the logic of Dr. C this would pretty much discount Zatkovich’s entire finding. At least that’s the impression I came away with after reading C’s review of the selective card issue where he seems very distracted by the misspelling of the word pica. So distracted in fact that he based the title of his article on that fact of little consequence. It was pointed out at the beginning of the PC that the set of vids being used contained some minor errors.

          Now RC, I call your attention to Zatkovich’s summary:

          “In summary, my analysis indicates that there were modifications made to the PDF, and that the PDF contains, at a minimum, slight alterations to the original document. P.2.”

          And from page 16.

          “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document. It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the document that the content of the document was also changed. There is no specific evidence of how or why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was changed.”

          That falls way short of someone saying the document is perfectly legit.

          Fox News said Canadian Computer Expert Jean-Claude Tremblay said the document was legit. I contacted him and he said that he had never said any such thing to Jana Winter of FNC and had been demanding that she print a retraction. I tried to help him get the retraction, but Jana Winter had written her story and didn’t want to be bothered with revisiting the subject.

          It would seem that the best that Obots can get is experts who admit there are anomalies in the electronic file but that without seeing the original it is hard to know what was changed. Hardly the stuff that vindication is made of wouldn’t you agree?

          Now we get to the part where I am going to ask you stop repeating a certain piece of information regarding Zatkovich. Bill Bryan a.k.a P.J. Foggy of fame said on my show that Zatkovich’s report was not reported by WND. Let me say that again, he said IT WAS NEVER PUBLISHED BY “WND”.

          I corrected him and made reference to the article published by WND. His response was that Corsi hadn’t published it.

          That would have been fine if his original comment was that Corsi hadn’t reported it, but that’s not what he said and not what you said. You both said WND didn’t report it. That is factually incorrect! Notice I didn’t say either of you intentionally lied. Here is the link to the article.

          This was clearly pointed out to Mr. Bryan when he was on my show, yet you still repeat it today. Why do you and other Obots keep implying that WND buried this story?
          I’d like an answer please.

  • Mark E. Gillar

    Squeek, I’m starting to like you. I like the way you present your information. Much classier than some people I know, not to mention any names. Then again, I’ve always been a sucker for the “good cop, bad cop” technique.

    Here is the bottom line. We were told Hawaii gave him the birth certificate, and it was scanned it into a computer. The file size alone suggests it’s been optimized as do the layers. That’s if of course it wasn’t optimized in Preview. Control docs scanned by two people trying to support the authenticity of Obama’s long for birth certificate have helped prove our point by getting almost the exact number of layers our control document had. See Dr. Data and the Nathan Goulding for more details.

    There are anomalies in the document that prove the document was not merely scanned in and optimized. For example, scanning a document into a computer does produce a clipping mask, but not one that hides information. The clapping mask in OBama’s BC file does hide info. Even a well-known computer expert who originally supported the authenticiy of the document has told me privately that he missed that and that it “just isn’t right.” He specifically stated that a clipping mask that hides information would have to be set and applied by a human. There are many more examples of anomalies that can’t be explained. Some require a knowledge of computers, others a knowledge of typewriters, and some just common sense.

    Not a single SS Registration card on record has a two digit year date. Missing letters in the outer ring are common but not in the four digit year date part of the stamp. You haven’t addressed why the 08 is shoved over to the right even though there is a metal stop that prevents this from happening. Cutting the stamp in half too close to the second zero in 2008 and turning it upside down would explain it. I love the attempt to shave off the top of the eight. Classic example of someone thinking they’re brilliant and everyone else in the world is stupid. Granted they didn’t have long to work after Obama shot his mouth off in that interview with little George, but that’s no excuse for a document this poorly forged. I guess they couldn’t find an old stamp made to DOD specs and they couldn’t wait until 2019 to get a 19..LOL

    I do agree that ultimately it will take a certified forensic document examiner to decide this. The anomalies, particularly in the SS Reg card certainly give reason for demanding such an examination. You’ll be happy to know that Sheriff Arpaio is requesting exactly that with regard to the selective service card. As a man with nothing to hide, I’m sure Obama will allow it. He’s been so cooperative in the past.

    Take care Squeek.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter


      Thank you for saying nice things about me, but I bet some people, like Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, and Dianna Cotter to name just a few, don’t see me as a “Good Cop.” But then again, I am a whole lot rougher on the two citizen parents types.

      I noticed that you mentioned Neil Denninger in your response to RC. He is one of the 3 or 4 non-Birther Issue blogs that I read every day. I remember when the long form first came out that he said while the image was manipulated, that didn’t mean that it was a forgery.

      I try to stay focused on Big Picture issues, so I haven’t tried to learn anything about clipping masks and layers and all that stuff because I still see that as a very unimportant tree in the forest.

      I listened to the Corsi, Zebest, & Denninger vs.Woodman debate when it came out on Market Ticker. Woodman was in a no-win situation, debate wise. Returning to the Moon Landing Photo analogy, once you start debating shadows and artifacts, you find yourself debating photography issues, not whether or not the Moon Landings were staged. In like fashion, Woodmen found himself debating computer imaging, not whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii.

      While it is helpful for people to go into some of the minutia and details, I think Anti-Birthers and Obots can find themselves getting side-tracked pretty quickly in debates if they focus on narrow issues. As another example, some people focus on the translation of Vattel’s “indigenes”, and whether it meant “natives” or “natural born citizens.”

      While that is an interesting point, it is not one I care about because I try to keep focused on, “We don’t get our laws from France anyway,” sooo why do I care how you translate it. It is irrelevant.

      By that same token, all the computer imaging issues are pretty much irrelevant to me. Because they simply don’t say anything about the underlying document unless incongruous information is found. And never can or will.

      The SSR date stamp issues are mildly interesting, but isn’t the real issue actually, “Do postal clerks screw up???” or “Do date stamps wear out???” Because if people weren’t assuming that Obama was hiding something, aren’t those the questions people would be asking, if they were asking questions at all???

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • Reality Check

    No one is going to prison for forging, altering or creating documents on behalf of Barack Obama. The notion that any of these biased amateurs calling themselves a posse is going submit evidence that would convince a jury to do that is laughable.

    • Mark Edward Gillar

      You don’t even know everyone on the posse, so how can you claim they are all amateurs or biased? Mike Zullo is the commander of the group. Have you even researched his background before making such an uninformed and false claim.

      As for your prediction, it’s worthless.

      Watch this. I can make one too.

      I agree no “one” person will go to jail. In the end, many people will go to jail over this.

      See how easy that was. No facts. No supporting evidence. Just throwing out an opinion just like you did.

      Neither of us accomplished anything by doing so.

      The funny thing is that I understand that and you apparently don’t.

      • John Woodman

        See how easy that was. No facts. No supporting evidence. Just throwing out an opinion just like you did.

        I’m wondering why anyone should actually even bother to produce facts and evidence, when it’s clear that even hundreds of hours of facts, evidence, and careful, truthful, VERIFIABLE analysis — literally months’ worth of careful, factual, REPLICABLE analysis — don’t matter one damn bit?

        One goes to great, even Herculean, effort to publish the God’s truth on a matter, and still people like Mark Gillar will appear to publicly proclaim to the world that the facts are all supposedly meaningless, or that they don’t exist, or to falsely claim that they have been “debunked.”

        • Mark Edward Gillar

          John, I know you feel you were shortchanged the last time you were on my show. I wasn’t exactly happy with how thing went either. Why don’t you come back on? Just you and me this time. No butting in while you are trying to make a point.

          I’m actually getting tired of typing. What do you say John, would you like to come back on? Let’s have this conversation on the show.

          I want to make it clear that I’m not here to defend every word Corsi has ever spoken about the sequencing of the certificates but you are welcome to remake that point. Yes you did miss something regarding Harrison. I’ll go back an listen and get you the exact time in the audio file so you won’t have to dig for it.

          I somehow think we will accomplish more if it’s just the two of us.

        • John Woodman

          Mark, you obviously were very close to the Arpaio “investigation,” since you produced the official video that was shown at their press conference. The official video.

          That being the case, you had to know that this was an all-birther show, and that no input at all from myself or anyone else who wouldn’t toe the birther line was invited.

          Frankly, Mark, that’s what I call a bent investigation. An investigation in which only one side is duly looked into or considered. An investigation in which the other side is not consulted at all, and has no opportunity whatsoever to make any points, or to answer any points that are made against it.

          And you were part of it. In fact, you actively participated in what amounted to public criticism of my own personal work; which I was neither allowed to respond to, allowed any input into, or even informed of beforehand.

          That being the case, whatever your motivations (and I’m sure you’ll tell me that you’ve acted with only the best of intentions) you have functionally taken your place with Corsi and Zebest as a birther propagandist. You have lent your voice to push claims that were shown to be invalid as evidence before Arpaio’s investigation was even launched.

          Did you stand up against the fact that the “investigation” was completely one-sided? Did you urge the Cold Case Posse to get both sides of the story directly from the horse’s mouth? Maybe. But from where I’m sitting I don’t see any evidence that you did.

          Since you have apparently taken up the role of propagandist, rather than standing up for integrity, proper procedure and truth, please explain to me why I should trust you to go on your show again? I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea, but you must forgive me if my first reaction is to be a bit skeptical.

      • Reality Check

        OK, I will back up my assertion. How about you?

        I challenge Mark Gillar to the following wager:

        If by November 6, 2012 at least one person has been convicted in a court of law, as a result of information uncovered by the Cold Case Posse, of forging, in support of Barack Obama, any of the following records: his birth certificate, social security records, or selective service records I will donate $100 to any organization that Mark Gillar designates. If no one has been convicted then Mr. Gillar will donate $100 to The Fogbow.

        • Monkey Boy

          If no one has been convicted then Mr. Gillar will donate $100 to The Fogbow.

          A rhetorical device, undoubtedly, since birfers and teabaggers are all liars and welchers. What ever happened to Farah’s promise concerning the President’s LFBC?

        • Reality Check

          Wow., we have all forgotten about Farrar’s promise to donate $15,000 to the hospital of the President’s birth. I guess we just assumed that the promise was another WND lie from Farrah and Corsi. Of course, we were correct. Kapi’olani will never see a dime of Farah’s money.

          “Obama has said he was born in Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu. He participated in a fund-raiser for the medical center in January. WND will send a check to whatever birth hospital is listed on his long-form birth certificate. All Obama has to do to see that donation made is to release it publicly.”

          Farah said that offer now is being amended.

          “Since politicians in Hawaii are so interested in honoring Obama, why not use their influence on him to produce the proof that will lead to a cash contribution – no strings attached – to a worthy charity. In fact, I’ll make it $15,000!” he wrote.

        • Reality Check

          I meant Farah of course. I can’t keep my Birther’s straight.

      • RoadScholar

        Mark: Thomas Brown here, of Baltimore, MD. I own a woodshop there; you can look me up.

        I’ve got $1000 says nobody… not one person, not “many”… will ever go to jail for forging BHO’s records. How do I know? Because it’s all horse-pucky, Mark. Utter garbage. Fiction. Nonsense. A big mass of swift-boat slime by swift-boating slime-balls.

        You a big, brave bettin’ man, Mark? Put your money where your mouth is. I’ll even give you until Dec. 31st of this year, 2012. If anyone is convicted for fraud, forgery, etc. regarding any of BHO’s documents, I will pay you the money personally. If no one is, you must donate $1000 to the charity of my choice.

        How about it Mr. Gillar? Or are you, as I’ve long decided, all talk?

    • John Woodman

      This would also be a good time to note that the one time that the birther propa… I mean, “evidence,” has been presented to a judge and tried on its merits — and mind you, this is the exact same evidence as presented by Arpaio’s posse — the “evidence” lost to an empty table.

      It just doesn’t get much worse than that.

  • John Woodman


    A few brief comments on a few of your comments.

    I know Woodman thinks he’s caught Corsi in lies, but to my satisfaction he didn’t come close to proving it.

    It is crystal clear that Jerome Corsi made an absolutely false statement as to what Charles Bennett did and did not say regarding the process for numbering Hawaiian birth certificates. That is clear and undeniable.

    It is crystal clear that Jerome Corsi based a major theory on that falsehood, went public with it, and used it to accuse the President of the United States of a serious crime. That is clear and undeniable.

    It is crystal clear that that has been pointed out to Jerome Corsi. That is clear and undeniable.

    It is also crystal clear that Corsi has never retracted the statement, even after being publicly confronted on it, or the theory, or the accusation of serious crime that he based on it.

    Mark, I’m not exactly sure what your standard for a “lie” is.

    Nor am I sure why you continue to defend Corsi on the point.

    As for the numbering sequence, John tried to imply on my show that the issues with Sunahara can be explained by the fact that she only lived a short time.

    All known birth certificates from that summer — including Obama’s — fit into a clear alphabetical pattern, with precisely one exception. That one exception is the one infant who only lived for one day, and who also therefore has an accompanying death certificate. She is the only infant who also has an accompanying death certificate.

    We know that there was interaction between the death certificate and the birth certificate, because the death certificate has the birth certificate number hand-printed on it. And the birth certificate isn’t 400 numbers earlier than the Nordyke and Obama certificates. It’s roughly 400 numbers later, indicating a delay in processing. This is not at all inconsistent with what one might expect.

    As for John Woodman. Does he really have anything to add to what was in his book? I recall the team of experts on my show were not too impressed with John.

    What I had to say in my book was more than enough, given that NONE of your so-called “experts” have ever successfully refuted any of it. Not one chapter. Not one paragraph. Not one word.

    They tried — and so did you — with the claim that “only a simple file will produce a small number of layers.” The Obama certificate might arguably be considered to be about twice as “complex” as the example in my book. Well, guess what? The example in my book had 5 layers; the Obama certificate has 9. There is perfect consistency there.

    In order to have a point, they would have to have shown that their optimization process — which produced dozens of layers in an Obama birth certificate duplicate — also produced the same 5 or so layers that I got for the Little Red Riding Hood image, using that exact image. They didn’t show that.

    And do you know why? I wasn’t there (being shut out of the ficticious “investigation” altogether), but I can hazard a guess. It was most likely because whatever process they used to try and “duplicate” the optimization produces something like twenty-something layers for the Little Red Riding Hood image.

    In other words, all they showed was that they have the wrong optimization process.

    As for your “experts” not being too impressed with me, I’m far less than impressed with them.

    You’ve got one “expert” who with his company stands to make up to $2 million by the investigation — if only it turns out this one certain way. Or had you not noticed that 100,000 books times $20 a pop equals $2 million?

    And the same “expert” puts up for sale — the day before Arpaio’s press conference — an ebook that he’s splitting the profits for with the lead investigator of the Cold Case Posse — in a book deal that (once again) is only possible if the results go one way and not the other. This is supposed to be a book on the Arpaio investigation. And yet, for some odd reason, the only chapters in that ebook that have to do with the birth certificate itself are copied almost word for word from two articles authored by the same writer last summer, before the Arpaio investigation was even launched.

    This exact same “expert” works for a company that received very clear and credible information last August 29 that the claims he was putting before the public didn’t hold water — with very specific and verifiable reasons as to why this was true. Instead of informing his audience of those claims so that they could judge for themselves, he completely suppressed them while continuing a steady stream of claims (at least one of which is known to be completely false) that had the odd effect of promoting the book he was peddling to the public.

    As for Zebest, this is an “expert” that is known to have stated before the entire birth certificate issue arose, “It’s what I live for — my goal to make [Barack Obama] a mockery of the very crowds he seeks for adulation.”

    This is also an “expert” that presents herself as if she’s written more than 100 books on technical subjects. Except when you actually track her record, there are only about half a dozen in which she appears to have actually written content, as opposed to doing some “technical editing,” she is listed as the primary author on none of those, and all of them appear to be successive rewrites of the same book.

    This is also a graphics “expert” who doesn’t even know how to properly pronounce one of the basic terms used in graphics. The woman does not even know how to pronounce the word “antialiasing.” She calls it “antialazing.” I have never made a deal of this before in public, as I did not want to focus on peripherals or anything other than the actual facts and arguments. But it’s true.

    This is also an “expert” that when asked to debate the facts, resorts to ridicule, making bald assertions unbacked by any evidence, such as “Only a few people read Woodman’s blog — and one of them is his mother.” How unprofessional is that?

    As for Denninger, I can only say the same. His technique in debate was to attempt to win by force: Shout your opponent down. That’s real professional as well.

    Hopefully you caught the part where mild-mannered Tom Harrison (One of only 3 well-behaved guests on the show that day in addition to John and Nellie) pointed out that statements in John’s book regarding Harrison’s work were incorrect.

    I felt like contacting Mr. Harrison personally and thanking him for his professionalism in the debate, as he was literally the only one of your main “experts” who has actually behaved like a professional. Nellie behaved like a professional as well, but she was a last minute addition and really hasn’t had anything to do with the technical analysis of the document itself.

    That said, I am to this day unaware of any statements in my book misrepresenting his claims. I may have missed something here — which would be rather easy in the midst of Jerome Corsi trying to change the subject from his false statements to a demand that the White House should’ve released some official statement on technical document formats, Karl Denninger shouting at me and Mara Zebest comparing me to the Unabomber. If so, I will issue a correction when I figure out what it was that I missed.

    As for you, Mark, I was frankly shocked when I realized that you had thrown your hat in the ring to lend your name to Arpaio’s completely one-sided birther investigation. It seems to me that either you did not read my book, or you did not understand it. The reason there is “nothing new” is that the investigation that preceded the book was a comprehensive one that provided comprehensive explanations and answers. There was practically nothing left to investigate or to explain.

    But for whatever reason, instead of siding with the actual truth in the matter, you’ve decided to lend your weight to the debunked propaganda being put out by birthers. And make no mistake: almost every word of it has been debunked. I had believed you when you stated to me that the truth was more important to you than a particular agenda. I have been disappointed to find out otherwise.

    • Monkey Boy

      I have not read Mr. Woodman’s book, since I feel I don’t need to concern myself with “layers,” “smiley faces,” and ukeleles. I believe that it is pointless caviling. For me it is enough that the State of Hawaii has issued birth certification documents for the President, and vouched for them. End of story.

      However, I am profoundly impressed by Mr. Woodman’s quiet and competent demeanor. He does not distort or lie or seek to mis-represent. I am somewhat discomfited by encountering someone from the right of the spectrum that is worthy of respect and courtesy; but, that attitude is due to empirical evidence rather than logic.

      But, I (unlike birfers and teabaggers) live and learn, and I am capable of adjusting my attitudes according to facts and experiences.

  • John Woodman

    One small clarification: when I state that Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi and WorldNetDaily stand to make up to $2 million off of the issue — if it “goes” a particular way — I am referring not just to the Arpaio investigation, but to the entire issue, and chiefly referring to the “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” book that Corsi has been hawking since last spring.

    In this I am stating absolutely nothing that was not publicly stated by Corsi himself. He claimed at one point that he was “on track” to sell 100,000 copies of the book. Those go for at least about $20 each. $20 times 100,000 is $2 million.

    That’s gross, of course and not net — but it also doesn’t count additional amounts from WND web site advertising revenues, solicitations of public donations for the billboard campaign (at up to $5,000 or more per pop), sales of other peripheral birther junk like DVDs and bumper stickers, profits from the latest Corsi/ Zullo ebook, and whatever other new angles they can come up with to extract profit from the issue.

  • Mark Edward Gillar

    Funny, RC doesn’t want to talk about the fact that Bob Unrue reported on the Zatkovich findings even though I provided the link. Is there a reason for that RC? Having problems dealing with the fact that my link proves you were wrong?

    That was fun. Let me say it again.





    Not one of you has an answer for the shaved upside down 8, the missing 19 or the 08 being shoved past the point where the metal stop would have prevented it from going farther over to the right.

    Sorry Squeek, stamps don’t wear out in such a fashion that only the one and nine wear out. Again, give more than 48 hours, I’m sure the forger could have done a better job.

    I challenged you to a debate RC after you called me a coward. you didn’t even address the request. Bill chickened out (no pun intended) of a debate with Corsi and you’re pretending like you didn’t hear my challenge.

    Again, I publicly admitted that Bill had not been disbarred. I’m still waiting for you RC or any other birther to admit one of your own made a mistake.

    As for John Woodman. Yes John, you did miss something. I’ll get the exact time in the interview and email it to you. How funny that when RC was getting his ass kicked here he ran to get you. What a wussy.

    John, you are welcome to come back on my show. You can bring up the sequencing thing and I will not interrupt you. We can also revisit Harrison’s statements. I have no personal problem with you John. You conducted yourself like a true professional on my show. I don’t agree with you on all the points you’d like to make, but friendship has never been based on totally agreeing with someone.

    As for Monkey Boy. You make all those jokes about liberals being stupid seem justified.

    Trust me RC, the SS Registration card will lead to arrests. It’s been funny watching liberals bend over backward to avoid the SS registration issue.
    The excuses are laughable at bests. We know exactly what the specs are for a USPS stamp. Very, Very specific my friend. You can’t just log on to eBay and buy them. In fact, it’s against the law to sell them.

    I’m guessing you noticed Dr. C didn’t provide a link to that eBay auction.

    Oh well I’m done here. It’s a waste of everyone’s time. The criminal investigation moves forward. RC will always be afraid to debate me. He will never explain the fake SS registration stamp and Squeek thinks she (if she isn’t one of the guys from Fogbow) ignore the details and just focus on the big picture.

    The truly big picture squeak is that anyone who didn’t have something to hide would have ended this a long time ago by cooperating.

    Take care all of you. We can take a bus trip to visit all the guilty in prison once the gavel of justice finally comes down.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter


      Well, this is the part addressed to me:

      “Not one of you has an answer for the shaved upside down 8, the missing 19 or the 08 being shoved past the point where the metal stop would have prevented it from going farther over to the right.

      Sorry Squeek, stamps don’t wear out in such a fashion that only the one and nine wear out. Again, give more than 48 hours, I’m sure the forger could have done a better job.”

      First, I am not aware that the “8” is for sure upside down, or that it has been shaved, or that it is not possible for it to wear out more on one side. In fact, for a right-handed person you would expect more pounding on the rubber on the right side of the stamp where the “80” is. That part is kind of common sense.

      Just get a hand held onion chopper and work on some onions. Notice how the right side is cut all the way through where the left side often has some peel left??? Being right handed puts more pressure on the right side of the stamp.

      Next, from the pictures of PICA Stamps at Obama Conspiracy Theories, I notice the individual days are two digit plugs. Or at least they look that way in the picture. If there was something sinister going on, could not somebody have just used the “19” from the day of the month to put there with the allegedly upside-down “08”???

      But again, this strays from:

      If the date stamp on the SSR is funky, then Obama was not born in Hawaii

      Which implication can not be made.

      But all of this may be moot, because tonight I had a revelation how a lawsuit could be framed to get a copy of the long form birth certificate. I ran it by my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, and she rotflhao and said that it was a great idea and would most probably work.

      Also, the last few times you posted you were in moderation because of the software here. Once I approve you, you should be good to post. Sometimes when you have a link in the comment, the software automatically puts you into moderation.

      One other time your address was spelled differently by one letter which caused the software to treat you as a new person. This is why your icon was different.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    • Monkey Boy


      You lie and attempt to cavil over trivialities. It doesn’t amount to a hill of beans what anybody’s analysis of a reproduction of this document is. It is totally insignificant.

      The State of Hawaii has issued birth certification documents for the President. That much cannot be denied–lied about, perhaps, but not successfully denied. So, as I see it, the only question is whether the reproductions are faithful to the original document. What data has been changed? Since official Hawaiian statements are that the reproduction is an accurate representation of the issued document, this indicates nothing material was changed; therefore, BS charges
      of “forgery” are meaningless and attempts to create a controversy around this is lying and dishonest. But, all birfers are foul, un-American, seditious liars (and often, grifters).

      • Monkey Boy

        I wonder if all the frogmarching that is yet to be done will take place within 30 days like Orly’s famous announcement to the lunatic faithful–“keep pushing that paypal if you want to see this.”

        Or, maybe, like government rat Swenson’s boast of having “every thing done with by July 4th.” This was made the third week of June in 2009.

        I won’t even mention Ed Hale’s “We finally got his A$$” moments (multiple),

        Mark Gillar’s bit of braggadocio won’t even register with the ODS sufferers. They have been lied to and finger penetrated so many times before.

    • Monkey Boy

      Trust me RC, the SS Registration card will lead to arrests. It’s been funny watching liberals bend over backward to avoid the SS registration issue

      Another grandiose assertion by a birfer liar. If there were to be any arrests, then Bush Administration officials would be the ones on the dock since the FOIA info about the draft registration came during his term of office.

      Kindly explain how a freshman senator would have the influence to command Civil Servants to risk their freedom and pensions to help an opponent of the current administration? Really sensible.

    • Monkey Boy

      My instinct is that Herr Gillar is trolling for controversy to hype his radio show. My advice to Mr. Woodman is to avoid being exploited by a charlatan. Let him draw his own audience.

    • John Woodman


      Mark, I could be wrong here — and certainly don’t presume to speak for RC or any of the people at the fogbow — but if I understood correctly, I personally thought the point was that Zatkovich’s report was never published by WND.

      From what I understand of the history of that report, Dr. Conspiracy (who’s another player yet) got a copy of the report by personal request from Zatkovich. That’s not where I got my own copy. I found a copy of the 16-page report on Zatkovich’s own web site, and downloaded it. I certainly did not get it from WND.

      If my understanding is correct and the point was that WND never published the report, then that point would actually be true. Yes, WND certainly did report on it. However I’m not sure their characterization gave as accurate an understanding as reading the report itself; in fact, I’m sure it didn’t.

      The report was an interesting one. The thing that stands out in my mind about that report now was that (even though it was professionally done, and I said as much in my book), it seemed to me as if Zatkovich was also trying to find something he could say was “wrong” about the document in order to please WND who had hired him, while still maintaining his professionalism.

      Zatkovich’s conclusion was:

      “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document. It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the document that the content of the document was also changed. There is no specific evidence of how or why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was changed.”

      The last part of that is simply speculative. “It is possible…” Well, a lot of things are possible. “There is no specific evidence…” Well, he was right about that. The key sentence is the first one. He wasn’t entirely correct about that one, strictly speaking, but he was pretty close.

      I might put it this way: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone scanning in a birth certificate, possibly rotating it, enhancing the legibility, optimizing the thing, and maybe doing a small amount of cleanup.”

      In other words, every single characteristic that I have ever seen is consistent with innocent processes.

      And I’m crystal clear about that, Mark. I’ve spent over 500 hours on that file, and as far as I’m aware, I’ve investigated and accounted for every single claim and allegation ever made by Corsi, Zebest, Denninger, Harrison et al. And as I stated before, to my knowledge those folks have not invalidated one single significant point made in the 221 pages of my book.

      And the only claim that I know of that I hadn’t publicly debunked was the claim that the “clipping mask” is evidence of forgery. Well, it turns out that one isn’t much good either.

      The short version is this: The margins at top and bottom are both the exact same number of pixels. The margins at left and right are also both the exact same number of pixels, albeit a different number from the top/bottom margins.

      This is suggestive that the clipping mask was set by a program and not by a human being — since it would be unusual and unexpected for a person to get the margins absolutely consistent, to the pixel, in both the top/bottom and left/right instances. So there’s no particular real evidence here the clipping mask was set manually by a human being, and there’s a suggestion that it wasn’t.

      Incidentally, one of the forgery claims was that the signature couldn’t possibly be hand-done, because it was “too straight.” That (like all the other nonsense) was shown to be invalid, because the signature actually wasn’t perfectly straight.

      A similar principle actually does apply here.

      But of course you and Zebest and Corsi will simply ignore that, because birthers (I’ve learned) have radically different standards of proof for things that support their claims, versus things that don’t support their claims.

      Do we have record that one single child was born to an American in the country Kenya sometime during 1961-1962? Omigod! That’s proof!! Or at least it’s awfully suspicious… Do we have 500 hours of careful and honest investigation — by a conservative — that didn’t find any real evidence for forgery but instead found a lot of confirmed innocent explanations for the characteristics shown? Well, there’s nothing of merit at all in that…

      But I digress.

      Secondly, even if the “clipping mask” were set by a human being, it would most likely be indicative of nothing more than a desire to hide the two blemishes on the right hand side of the image. This is called cleaning up a scanned image. It’s rather appropriate when presenting an image to a few million people; and it does not constitute forgery.

      Third, those two little spots appear nowhere on the photograph by Savannah Guthrie. By Zebest’s theory these would have appeared on the paper document when it was printed. Of course, her theory presents absolutely no explanation for why they exist in the first place. But let’s say anyway that they were there in the supposed forged file (which couldn’t possibly be the PDF, by the way, but I won’t get into that here).

      In that event, when the document was printed, those two little dots would’ve appeared on the paper document — unless, of course they were turned off to print the document. But n that case, why weren’t they turned off — or better yet, eliminated altogether — before creating the PDF? Just like the rest of Zebest’s claims, the whole thing makes no damn sense at all from the technical point of view.

      And the technical point of view is plenty, but it then goes well past making no sense at all when viewed in the context of the entire vast collection of known characteristics of the document and situation — including official certification statements from Hawaii, the photograph which clearly shows a raised seal, Savannah Guthrie’s personal testimony, the fact that the AP document is much higher quality than the PDF, the testimony of half a dozen officials and Obama’s high school English teacher — all of it. These things all continue to collectively and conclusively show that the entire Corsi/ Zebest web of forgery claims is utter rubbish.

      In fact, I would call it indisputable rubbish, except for the fact that we have people disputing it.

      It’s all a case of the Emperor’s new clothes — entirely false claims are being sold to the public. The problem is, it’s just not as easy as in the case of the Emperor’s new clothes for the average person to tell at first glance what rubbish the claims are.

      You need to understand, too, that I would’ve been just as happy to declare the thing a forgery if that had been where the evidence led. It just didn’t lead there.

      In fact, one night for about 10 or 15 minutes I thought I was onto something solid, and was practically dreaming of the press conference I was going to call, in which I would announce that the President of the United States had a forged birth certificate.

      But unlike some others, I don’t announce stuff to the world unless it’s really likely to hold up under real scrutiny.

      That’s why I was so shocked when Arpaio’s press conference was the announcement that it was. Because I know the entire thing was a load of horse manure that had been debunked months before. I never seriously believed that Arpaio would go full birther.

      And I was doubly shocked when I realized it was your voice on the video. Because you weren’t just stating there were doubts about the PDF — and even that would’ve been a pretty good stretch given the state of the evidence — you were announcing to the world that the PDF was definitely an outright forgery, and throwing your lot in with Corsi and Zebest on claims had been proven, as far as I’m concerned, to be complete nonsense — all to accuse the President of the United States of having a forged birth certificate.

      I considered it at the time that virtually all of the forgery claims had been publicly disproven, and I consider the same thing now. Except now I’ve told you the real scoop on that clipping mask, so I guess I can say that as far as I know, I consider all of the forgery claims to have been publicly disproven.

  • Monkey Boy

    This just in! The futures market for march-capable frogs has plummeted. Word on the street is that it’s not coming back.

    Oh, well…I sold while the market was high.

  • Reality Check

    Wow, don’t you folks ever sleep? There is so much to address. First, I was correct in what I said about Ivan Zatkovich. WND did not publish his report. I knew that WND had mentioned they had hired Zatkovich. They wrote one sentence and never mentioned him again. What John Woodman said is correct. Doctor Conspiracy obtained a copy only after contacting Zatkovich. I think Zatkovich then placed it on his web site. My question was why the CCP did not consider the report of a certified forensic document analyst (Zatkovich) but instead seemed to rely on people like Corsi and Zebest who have no qualifications and clearly have either an axe to grind and/or monetary interest in keeping the controversy going. If they were going to use amateurs why not use John Woodman? John was not biased gong into his analysis and was willing to follow his research to wherever it lead him. Mark, can you honestly say the same for the CCP?

    Mark, should we give you an award for not repeating Corsi’s easily rebutted lie about Foggy having been disbarred? The reason Foggy decided not to debate Corsi was that Corsi had written a hit piece on him, posted photos of his sons, and urged people to call and harass Foggy. Sounds to me like a valid excuse choose not to give the slime merchant Corsi any more fodder to slime.

    I seem to remember I offered you a chance to be on my show over six months ago and you either declined or never replied. BlogTalk Radio does not keep sent messages. If I am incorrect on that I apologize. The offer remains. I offered two chances for any Birther to come on my show and participate in a structured debate on NBC and other Birther issues. No one accepted the first time. The only one who accepted the second chance chickened out and didn’t even email to cancel. You can take that spot and debate John Woodman, Frank Arduini, or someone else if they are willing. I reserve the right to ask questions of both sides as the host.

    As Squeeky, John Woodman, and others have pointed out a radio debate is really not a great format for talking about graphical things. We can discuss the methods, motives and qualifications. Besides, there really is nothing factual to debate. What we have on one hand is President who is clearly qualified. We know that the State of Hawaii has attested through two legal birth certificates, letters, and statements that he was born in Hawaii. There is other supporting evidence galore. There is no evidence he was born any other place. We know he is over 35 years of age from those same documents. That makes him a natural born citizen and eligible. The claims of forgery are all a bunch of wild speculations on minor anaoloies present in other documents by biased amateurs and none hold up. No one has identified any of the the hundreds of people of both parties who would have to be involved in this conspiracy with actual proof.

    Mark, you said I never correct myself. Well I try to be accurate so I rarely have to do that. I make mistakes like all of us do, however. A few days ago I admitted I made an error on a comment I had made about Mario Apuzzo’s reference to a paper by Patrick Charles. It was a pretty minor error but I corrected it anyway before someone had to point it out to me. It was a comment on this article: The Bottom Line Regarding Barack Obama’s Eligibility to Be President, the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen,” and the Birther Movement. Mark, you should really read that article by the way.

    Pardon me if I missed it but I did not see the words “I accept your wager”. Now who is the chicken again?

    • RoadScholar

      Hey RC… I upped the ante above. I bet MG $1000, and I’m dead serious.

      And how cute is it that is Mark still going on about stamp wear, when the CCP’s “authentic” SS form had “Honolulu” stamped with a missing letter?


      • Reality Check

        Well played Thomas. I thought about making a larger wager but I wanted it to be enough to hurt but more just to show that Mark was all talk and no action. You are to be commended.

        One other claim I did not address was the one about the Obots saying OCR software caused the layers. I know I personally never made that claim. It was made very early after the posts that the “pdf has layers” first appeared but OCR software was quickly eliminated as a cause. I think Mark is using what they call a “straw man argument” there. Birthers (and conspiracy theorists in general) often do that. I will tell you though. No one can move the goal posts like Birthers. When I found that link to Joe Farah’s promise to pay $15k to Kapiolani is was funny to read “if he would just release the long form this would all be over”. Right…..

        • Frank Bolivar

          RC… they “very cleverly” get around paying off on the long-form by declaring that he’s not released the long-form. LOL

          Birthers are so stupid they just believe what any other whackjob states, so it flies.

        • RoadScholar

          If I remember right, any layer with characters in it can be analyzed by OCR, but OCR subroutines don’t create the layers in the first place. That’s done by the Optimizer.

          These are interesting bets, as they are so binary: either someone is indicted for forgery of BHO’s documents by a specific date or they aren’t. No weaseling out like Farah did… Which is no doubt why we still haven’t heard “I accept your wager” from anyone.

        • John Woodman

          The OCR claim was astonishing, in that I know of nobody who’s been making it. I myself dealt with the OCR issue in ONE PAGE out of a 221-page book.

          It indeed came across to me very much as a straw-man argument.

          Look, we’ve knocked this down! That means we’re really smart and our claims are correct.

    • John Woodman

      Reading back over this, one wonders whether Mark is going to issue a correction of his own claims for PRETTY MUCH FALSELY ACCUSING RC OF LYING — IN ALL CAPS.

      One also wonders whether Mark is going to issue a correction of his Arpaio posse video in which he claims that the birth certificate of the President of the United States is clearly a forgery, given that literally every single claim of good evidence of forgery, as far as I am personally aware — including those presented in his video — has now been publicly shown to be without merit.

      • Reality Check

        Thanks John. I will not hold my breath.

        The Birthers are whining that the media all seem to be ignoring the CCP interim report and are not taking the investigation seriously. First, the media is not ignoring it as Dr. Conspiracy showed by listing all the mentions it got in news pieces and articles. Second, if you want to be taken seriously then you better have done a serious investigation. Clearly the CCP did not do that.

        A classic example is the part of the investigation that we know Corsi performed to search the INS records. That was really the only “new” information presented in the entire report. First it turns out there is a benign explanation for any missing records. Those performing the microfilming screwed up the process. Second we know thanks to Doc C that not one single US citizen arrived by air from Kenya arrived into the US from 7/1/61 to 6/30/62 and Corsi’s search was fruitless because any arrival from Kenya could not have been into Hawaii.

  • Frank Bolivar

    “Because Obama publicly released his own records, he no longer has a right to privacy under Hawaiian law. I’m sure Nellie Vistvedt could clue you in if you’re not familiar with the exact law. She’s tried to clue in the HDOH but apparently following their own laws, policies, and procedures isn’t very important to them.”

    More birther lies and misinformation. Someone obtaining their BC from HI and doing whatever they wish with it, does not negate HI law. Obama nor anyone else can waive HI law regarding release of vital documents. What part of that you and other birthers don’t get is mind-boggling.

    But it’s typical.

    • Reality Check

      that is Nellie Ristvedt, aka Butterdezilion, who recently said she would shoot her children in the face rather than let them be taken to a FEMA camp (or something to that effect). I guess she was another of the CCP’s crew of “experts”.

      Also this exact issue was litigated last year in Wolf v Fuddy. The Hawaii court said a person could do anything they want with their own copy of their birth certificate but that does not allow other people to request a copy unless they are one of the people specifically designated to receive a certified copy by law. Gillar could have read all about it at The Fogbow or Obama Conspiracy and gotten the right answer.

  • Monkey Boy

    Say…WHATEVER HAPPENED TO Mark The Lizard? Did he scurry off with his tail between legs? Or, did some less serious occur…like being struck by a lightning bolt?

  • BillTheCat

    Gillar won’t put his money where his mouth is. EVER.

    You can bank on that from all birthers.

  • gorefan

    Maybe Mark can tell us why the President’s SSR date stamp is missing the first “O” in Honolulu and why it is missing most of the post office station name?

    Could it be because of a worn stamp or poor ink transfer?

  • gorefan

    Mark Gellar,

    John Woodman makes a good point.

    The Cold Case Posse used Mara Zebest as their computer expert to examine the PDF. If in July, 2008 Zebest says she lives to make a mockery of Barack Obama, did she finally get her chance in 2011? If given two possible explainations of the pdf, one benign and one sinister, would she go with sinister?

    It really calls into question her entire report.

    Read comments #424, 353 and 503

    • John Woodman

      Um… yes. If a person states in July 2008 that her “goal,” what she “lives for,” is to “make [Obama] a mockery of the very crowds he seeks for adulation,” and then shows up as an “expert” a couple of years later publicly proclaiming his birth certificate a forgery, I’d say there’s some darn good reason to suspect that that person is a biased individual, and should not be relied upon to run flagship on an expert opinion. That’s just basic.

      On the other hand, if someone states that he is a conservative who doesn’t particularly care for a particular President, and would prefer to see him voted out of office, but that the technical evidence, duly considered, shows no actual signs that ought to be interpreted as evidence of forgery, I’d say that person would probably be worth listening to.

      This is particularly true in a case where the person making the claim that there is no good evidence of forgery has done a thorough and detailed view of all forgery claims, and explained why, from the technical point of view, none of them stack up.

      It is particularly true in a case where the people making the forgery claims have failed to invalidate any of the factual criticisms of their work.

      Whatever Joe Arpaio may or may not have said to the posse, it seems clear to me that whoever was controlling this show — whether it was Michael Zullo or Jerome Corsi or Mara Zebest — I see no sign whatsoever of any earnest desire to look at all sides of the issue and establish the actual truth. And I have absolutely zero confidence in any further investigation by this team.

      As Kevin Davidson so aptly put it, “This wasn’t an investigation. It was a bunch of birthers in a clown car.”

  • Reality Check

    I suppose I shan’t be looking for $100 coming to The Fogbow from Mr. Gillar in November? It is such a shame.

  • The Bottom Line Regarding Barack Obama’s Eligibility to Be President, the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen,” and the Birther Movement | Investigating the Obama Birth Certificate Mystery

    […] the claim that the “clipping mask” in the PDF file is evidence of forgery. I have now commented on that. There is reason to believe that this, again, was the result of the scanning and optimization […]

  • Reality Check

    This is a reply to Mark Gillar’s comment at his where the anal comment engine will not let you post a link. He asked if I could post a link to where the State Department investigated the citizenship status of Barack Obama II. This was on page 38 of the FOIA release to Kenneth Allen per his request of documents relating to Lolo Soetoro.

    Mark’s comment:

    Can you supply a link please? As Barack Obama Sr. fought to stay in the country government officials also found that there was inadequate proof that he had fathered a child. Do we have conflicting goverment statements here.

    TeaPartyPowerHour in reply to RCRadioShow (Show the comment) 4 hours ago in playlist Uploaded videos

    Here is the link:

    This was the memo from Mr. W. L. Mix:

    Memo to file
    A 14 128 294
    Sept. 14, 1967

    Pursuant to inquiry from Central office regarding the status of the applicants’ [Lolo Soetoro] spouses’ child by a former marriage.

    The person in question is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961. He is living with the applicants’ spouse in Honolulu, Hawaii. He is considered the applicants step-child, within the meaning of Sec. 101(b)(1)(B), of the act, by virtue of the marriage of the applicant to the childs’ mother on March 15, 1965.

    W. L. Mix

  • Reality Check

    I meant to say at mark’s YouTube channel…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: