Well, math is certainly not my strong suit so I am probably going to regret this one, but nobody has tackled **Lord Monckton of Brenchley’s** Eligibility Odds analysis yet. Except that I found after doing this Internet Article, that Dr. Conspiracy had just finished one, too. So here is the link to his, too:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/miscalculating-the-odds/

Anyway, here is the relevant excerpt from the **World Net Daily Internet Article**, and the link to the whole article follows the excerpt:

# OBAMA ELIGIBILITY ODDS: 1 IN 62.5 QUINTILLION

## Lord Monckton crunches the numbers

He cites:

1.The fact that the registrar’s signature-stamp on the electronic form can be moved about: 100:1 against.

2.Registrar’s date-stamp ditto: 100:1 against.

3.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.)

4.“Lavishly funded bureaucracy uses wonky typewriter:” 10:1

5.Human error: Certificate number out of sequence: 25:1

6.Incorrect birth date of father: 40:1

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

8.Miscoded statistical data: 25:1 (official government estimate).

9.White halo around letters: 10:1

10.Chromatic aberration absent: 100:1

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

12.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)

13.Non-citizen of Connecticut holds Connecticut social security number: 100:1.“There are many other errors, but these suffice. Defenders of Mr. Community Organizer say each error could have just happened by accident. I mean, it’s government form-filling, right?,” he wrote. “But here’s where the math comes in. If each error is a genuine accident, the errors are independent events, so the probabilities of each error are multiplied together to determine the probability that all occurred in one document.

“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. 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.”

He wrote, “Don’t be misled by the simplicity of the method. It’s simple but sound.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/obama-eligibility-odds-1-in-62-5-quintillion/

First, let’s look at the method of determining the odds, from this website:

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/beyond/articles/gambling/odds.html

Independent vs Dependent EventsPeople often misunderstand the notion of independent events. This is a probability term meaning that past events have no influence on future outcomes. For example, when flipping a coin four consecutive times, the probability of getting four heads is:

This is because the probability of flipping a head if you flip a coin once is ½. Flipping a coin is an example of an independent event. When flipping a coin, the probability of getting a head does not change no matter how many times you flip the coin. When the coin is flipped and the first three flips are heads, the fourth flip still has the probability of ½ However, many people misunderstand that the first three flips somehow influence the fourth flip, but they do not. The probability is still the same, as if the first three flips had never occurred.

This is simple so far. You put the chance of something happening in the form of a fraction for each event, and then multiply the numerators and denominators. So let’s try it! Pull out 5 cards. Make 3 of them face cards. Turn them over, and pick one. What are the odds it will be a face card? 3 chances in 5. Pick out a second set of 5 cards with 3 of them being face cards. Now turn each set over and pick one card from each set. What is the chance both of them will be face cards??? 3/5 x 3/5 = 9/25.

Now we have the basic math down. Plus we learn something interesting. The more events you have with a fraction less than 1, the more the odds go up. With one set of 5 cards you had a 60% (3/5) chance of drawing a face card. With 2 sets you have a 36% (9/25) chance of drawing 2 face cards. **Monckton** has a 13 series of events above, so his game is rigged from the outset to result in lower odds.

Let’s move on to some more concepts. Take the 5 card set and a penny. The cards have a 3/5 chance of a being a face card, and the penny has a 1/2 chance of being flipped “heads.” Multiply those fractions and you get 3/5 ** **x 1/2** =** 3/10. But what does the 3/10 represent??? It can’t stand on its own as just a number without describing in more detail what it represents. Which in this example is the chance of drawing a face card AND getting “heads” on the flip.

Now, let me add a third item to these two, with some dice. What are the odds of me rolling box cars, or double sixes??? Those odds are 1 in 36, or 1/36. What are the odds of drawing a face card from the five card set, flipping “heads” on the penny, and rolling a double six??? Here’s the math: 3/5 x 1/2 x 1/36 or 3/360 or 1/120. But the question arises, “What am I really measuring???”

Let’s make it more interesting still. What are the odds that I will break a nail while picking a card, flipping a coin, and rolling the dice??? I put those odds at 1 in 100,000. Now what am I up to in the odds? Here’s the math: 1/120 x 1/100,000 = 1/12,000,000 or 1 in 12 million. But the question arises once more, “What am I really measuring???” These are unconnected things. I am picking the card, flipping the coin, rolling the dice, and breaking a nail all on the same desk top. What are the odds of that happening on the same desk top??? The answer is 1 in 12 million, but as you can see this is a basically meaningless number.

But I am still NOT happy with this number. I want it to be higher. Sooo, I am going to find a **non-event**, assign odds to it, and put it into the math mix. What I need for my** non-event** is something that either doesn’t happen at all, or if it does happen, it is not really what we normally think of as a measurable event, such as flipping a coin. How about how many times does McDonalds** fail** to give me ketchup with my drive thru order. That’s about 1 time in 4, or 1/4. That makes the odds for everything (pick face card, flip “heads”, roll box cars, break a nail, and fail to receive ketchup) about 1 in 48 million. See how easy it is to work your way up?

But, the McDonalds **non-event **needs more explanation. Simply not getting ketchup may not be an event at all because it is possible that I only ordered coffee at the window, and that typically does not require ketchup. Or, it could be that I ordered a dinner meal and no fries. Or, I just wasn’t feeling like ketchup on that trip, and so did not request any. Or, that I had some extra ketchup in the car. Trying to pin a set of odds on a situation like that is very problematic. It is possible it wasn’t a failure at all.

**Monckton** slyly engages in this same practice. He mixes facts and conjectures about an electronic image and tries to make the nexus the fact that they all occur about the same document. He goes further, because he also picks some events which are not agreed to constitute events by the non-Birther side. This is like saying “heads” were flipped, when one party to the action does not believe the coin was flipped at all. But **Monckton** makes the leap, and then assigns those contested facts odds as if they were not contested. This is great if you trying to run the number up, but pretty much meaningless for any other purpose. It will take a while, but let’s examine **Monckton’s** 13 so-called * independent events* in more detail.

**1. ** **The fact that the registrar’s signature-stamp on the electronic form can be moved about: 100:1 against. **

I am going to call this one a non-event. This is more like saying the coin exists, but it has not been flipped. The signature stamp on the paper document can not be moved about. If it can on the electronic image, it is not necessarily indicative of anything wrong.

**2.** **Registrar’s date-stamp ditto: 100:1 against.**

I am going to call this one a non-event, also. The date stamp on the paper document can not be moved about. If it can on the electronic image, it is not necessarily indicative of anything wrong.

**3.** **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.)**

Three time’s the charm, I guess. I am going to call this one a non-event, too. There are no layers on the paper document. If there are on the electronic image, it is not necessarily indicative of anything wrong.

**4.** **“Lavishly funded bureaucracy uses wonky typewriter:” 10:1 **

I’m sorry. Has the Hawaii DOH been shown to have been lavishly funded in 1961? Did I miss that? And what is a “wonky” typewriter as compared to a non-wonky one? If we are going to go all

on this, can we at least get some discrete measurable independent events???mathy

**5.** ** Human error: Certificate number out of sequence: 25:1**

I am beginning to see a pattern here.

Moncktonis choosing things which are NOT events at all. There is NO proof that the certificate number is out of sequence. In fact, Alvin Onaka. Ph.D, Hawaii State Registrar has thrice verified the number as correct.

**6.** **Incorrect birth date of father: 40:1 **

This is not a measurable event to which you can assign odds. No one knows what caused it. Was it a typo, or did somebody lie, or did somebody just mess up by accident???

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

Again, a non-event. This isn’t contrary to anything. The Cold Case Posse used the wrong coding book. I am becoming disappointed in

Lord Monckton.We are halfway through this stuff, and there has not been one single discrete measurable independent event.

**8.** **Miscoded statistical data: 25:1 (official government estimate).**

What miscoded statistical data??? The penciled in “9” is the correct number. Zullo and Corsi were using the wrong coding manual.

**9.** ** White halo around letters: 10:1**

Are we back to

non-eventsagain??? This is on the electronic image. There are no white halos on the paper document.

**10.** **Chromatic aberration absent: 100:1**

Damn

non-eventagain.

**11.** **Other identity documents: Anomalously worded abstract on short-form birth certificate: 100:1**

Nope, he’s gone to a different document to multiply against the long form birth certificate. This is just for the purpose of making the number larger, like me adding broken fingernails to the discrete measurable events.

**12.** **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)**

Nope, again. Different document. Same reasoning as 11 above. Plus, there is no evidence that the stamp wasn’t broken. How many 1981 documents from that post office have been analyzed???

**13.** ** Non-citizen of Connecticut holds Connecticut social security number: 100:1**.

This one might be a keeper, although it doesn’t relate to the birth certificate. There probably is a way to measure how often the SSA assigned group numbers to non-residents of the state. But that doesn’t prove anything was wrong. It could have been a typo.

Now I am kind of irritated here. I went and studied up on some math, and practiced multiplying fractions and **Lord Monckton** didn’t have but one marginally measurable event out of 13 alleged independent events. Everything else was an alleged incongruity of some sort, but mostly on the electronic pdf image. In other words, because Corsi and the Cold Case Posse couldn’t figure out how the paper document was scanned and uploaded, they came up with a bunch of ALLEGED errors, which His Majesty, or whatever you call him, tried to shoehorn into a phony probability analysis.

What is the chance that was an accident on **Monckton’s** part??? Let’s see, if we assume there is a 1 in 2 chance it was an honest boo-boo on his part, and we have 13 boo-boos, then 1/2 to the 13th power equals 1/8192 or 1 chance in 8,192 that it was an honest mistake.

For shame **Lord Monckton of Brenchley**!!!

Squeeky Fromm

Girl Reporter

**Note 1. The Image.** This is from the **1931** film, **Dr. Jekyll and Mister Hyde.**

**Note 2. Links.** Here is the previous article about **Lord Monckton**:

**Note 3. Odds Botchkins.** This is a word play on the epithet, **Odd Bodkins**:

Odd’s bodkinsis a mild profane oath, which literally means ‘God’s dear body!’ It’s now archaic, but was used as an exclamation likeGod damn!or a host of others.The usual form of the second word is

bodikin, which is a diminutive ofbody(the diminutive suffix-kinis found in such other words aslambkin). The expression occurs in Shakespeare (Hamlet: “Odds bodikins, man,” with a variant reading from the Quarto of “bodkin”), Fielding, and Smollet, among others. Expressions like this were very common in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; some other examples are‘sblood(God’s blood),‘snails(God’s nails),zounds(God’s wounds), andgadzooks(God’s hooks).The word is unrelated to

bodkin‘a small dagger or pointed instrument’, which itself occurs inHamlet, in the “to be or not to be” speech (“He himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin”). This word dates back to the fourteenth century, and is of uncertain origin.

**Botch** means to mess something up.

**Blowing Smoke** means bragging or boasting. (Blowing smoke is similar to “hot air;” it has little substance, and dissipates rapidly.)

September 26th, 2012 at 9:21 pm

Now all we need to do is get him to crunch the “born in Kenya” numbers. That should be a hoot.

September 27th, 2012 at 11:41 am

IMO, Monckton knows that he is play-proselytizing the already converted. No one will buy his nonsense except those that are looking for any reason to discredit the darkies in the WH.

It’s the reverse halo effect that persuades anyone to give credence any birther BS. The dupes actually know better, but choose to pretend to believe otherwise.

September 27th, 2012 at 2:04 pm

Well, yeah, but after seeing the contortions he went through to come up with this mess, I think that “born in Kenya” mess would be fun to watch.

And it cracks me up no end how the birthers and other tea party types are so fawning over his title.

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:18 am

Psst boy

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

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:34 am

Twinky

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.September 27th, 2012 at 12:43 am

Doc C put out an article on this too…

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/miscalculating-the-odds/

September 27th, 2012 at 1:01 am

G:

I know. I saw his tweet on it when I twittered this one out. I worked on this thing like all afternoon and part of the night.

Squeeky Fromm

Girl Reporter

September 27th, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Just be sure and take those vitamins. It is a lovely light, but you need to keep your strength up!

September 27th, 2012 at 12:45 am

John Woodman just asked a

realexpert for his opinion on whether the LFBC image was the result of an algorithm.September 27th, 2012 at 12:55 am

Test—Squeeky, check your spam folder…

September 27th, 2012 at 1:03 am

Slarti:

Wow! Which ones are your favorites. Just number them from the top down, and I will remove the ones you want.

Squeeky Fromm

Girl Reporter

September 27th, 2012 at 1:09 am

Just leave the first one and delete the rest—thanks!

I convinced John to post this tonight (instead of trying to get some press to cover it), so I felt like I should help him get the word out… Maybe a world-famous girl reporter could do an article on it… (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?)

September 27th, 2012 at 1:16 am

Slarti:

I was a step ahead of you! Plus, aren’t you a mathematician??? Because if you are, is there a better way to say some of the stuff I put in this one???

Squeeky Fromm

Girl Reporter

September 27th, 2012 at 1:24 am

I’m working on a comment about Mr. Monckton and his folly, but I’ve got some work on a paper of my own that needs to get done tonight (it’s titled

A predictive mathematical model of the DNA damage G2 checkpoint—a real page turner! ;-) ), but you did a good job and I’ll expand on what you said with dry, abstruse words and more math tomorrow…September 27th, 2012 at 1:16 am

Barack Obama Sr variously listed his birth year as 1934 and 1936 on a host of government forms. There’s no significance to one or the other appearing on his LFBC. In fact, I don’t have any authoritative source to prove which year is correct. All I can say is that when he was younger he made himself appear older, and when he became older he made himself appear younger.

See:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/when-was-obamas-daddy-born/

September 27th, 2012 at 2:04 am

The age of the President’s father has no more legal significance than an entry noting his educational level or occupation. Exactly zilch, except for statistical purposes.

The truly vital data such as parents names and places of birth, the newborn(s)’ time and place of birth, and the name(s) given to the newborn.

The ethnicity of the parents might be useful in identifying the documentation of a particular individual in case there is some ambiguity. But, an anomaly in those fields does not invalidate the record if it is otherwise indentifiable.

September 27th, 2012 at 8:57 am

“Odds Bodkins”… “God’s Little Bodies”… Communion wafers.

A modern joke reference we’ve added to Shakespeare performances when in need of amusement: ‘Snuts!

September 27th, 2012 at 9:32 am

I guess an

epithetcan be anepitaphif you put it on a tombstone. But what are the odds of that?September 27th, 2012 at 12:24 pm

Uh, would you believe I was just testing everybody to see if someone would catch that??? No. Well, it was worth a try. Good catch!

Squeeky Fromm

Girl Reporter

September 28th, 2012 at 7:13 am

I might believe it if Monckton could help by calculating the probability of you testing your readers in that way…

September 28th, 2012 at 12:05 am

Der squeekmeister.

September 30th, 2012 at 7:08 pm

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. 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.

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.

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.

September 30th, 2012 at 9:17 pm

The twit claims:

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.

September 30th, 2012 at 9:33 pm

Monckton of Brenchley:

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

September 30th, 2012 at 10:57 pm

First of all, thank you for visiting and commenting at Squeeky’s, Monckton of Brenchley. Hopefully, you will have a chance to purview her unique and rather artistically creative approach to covering these conspiracy stories.

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.

September 30th, 2012 at 9:01 pm

Well of course the doofus that came up with it would think it was sound. Duh.

October 2nd, 2012 at 10:29 am

I’d like to present an alternate calculation of the probability that the images of President Obama’s birth certificates are forgeries and the associated probability that Mr. Monckton is, instead, daft.

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

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)

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.

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

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

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

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

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,

notpeople 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

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 notsay 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

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

Ditto.

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

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

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

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

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…

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

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

credibleevidence) 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.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…).

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

However, no mathematician worth his salt would grant that

anyof 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.Good luck with that.

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…

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

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…

October 2nd, 2012 at 10:48 am

Slarti:

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

October 2nd, 2012 at 10:58 am

If you like—I’ve been using this to procrastinate writing a paper for the last several days (it’s pretty much done now and should be submitted tomorrow) and have just pulled my third all-nighter in the last five days, so I don’t know how coherent it is, but at least it’s thorough. I think I hit all of the high points as to why Mr. Monckton has done nothing so much as to demonstrate his own lack of critical thinking.

October 2nd, 2012 at 10:44 am

Mr. Monckton said:

December 11th, 2012 at 6:38 am

Wow, birther craziness does exist on both sides of the Atlantic. Monckton has plucked statistical possibilities out of his bum. Statistically, he can stop counting at the first item he regards as “actually impossible”. He applied statistics to some very flawed assumptions of the crazy birthers.

I can play his game: what are the chances that a forgery engaged in by one of the most powerful people in the world, with access to millions in campaign money would be so bad, especially AFTER all the issues raised regarding the short form “forgery”? Let’s break it down Monkton style:

Forger stuffs up Registrar’s signature stamp 1 in 100

Psychic conspirator created birth notice in 1960’s 1 in 100 (actually impossible)

Forger can’t get something as basic as line spacing right 1 in 10

Forger accidentally got letter spacing wrong 1 in 20

Obama would choose same or worse forger than the original one who forged short form certificate 1 in 100

Republican candidate would not avail himself of overwhelming evidence that Obama was born in Kenya 1 in 100 (actually impossible)

Republican party with a majority in the House of Reps would ignore such overwhelming evidence 1 in 100 (actually impossible)

Forger chose wrong state for social security number 1 in 25

Obama and the forger did not know father’s birth date 1 in 1000

Forger used “African” against written rules 1 in 25

Forger Miscoded Federal statistical data 1 in 25

In an attempt to make document look genuine, forger included too many mistakes (by mistake) 1 in 1000

Well resourced forger uses layers in Adobe to create forgery and then forgets to turn OCR off 1 in 1000

Probability that such a bad forger was chosen by such a well resourced candidate and then made so many mistakes: – 1 in umpteen quadrillion

Probability that any sane, sensible congressman, senator or AG etc. will take the assumptions in Monckton’s affidavit seriously:- 1 in umpteen sextillion (actually impossible)

Probability that birthers will find an error on any document they think relates to Obama being born in US 1:1

Probability that there will (not if) be prosecutions in relation to what must be the most statistically incompetent forgery and birth conspiracy in history:- about the same chance Monckton was the first astronaut who walked on a fake moon surface (actually impossible, his tinfoil hat would have given him away).