Entire books have been written about the problems with the “birth certificate” that was released by the White House purportedly documenting Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
Computer imaging experts have found it to be fraudulent and the conclusion of an official law enforcement investigation assembled by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is that it is just not real.
But it wasn’t until now, through the work of the Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, that the world was informed just exactly what the odds are against all of those anomalies occurring naturally.
One in 62,500,000,000,000,000,000. (That’s 62.5 quintillion)
Or, if one prefers, the chances are 0.0000000000000000000016 that those curious developments happened by accident.
The question at hand is whether Obama is constitutionally qualified for the office, under the Constitution’s requirement that presidents be a “natural born citizen.” Some say even if he was born in Hawaii, he wouldn’t qualify, because of his father’s foreign student status. Many believe a “natural born citizen” is the offspring of two citizen parents.
Monckton previously has advised Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher about the fallacies of global warming, has written for the Yorkshire Post, was editor of the Catholic paper The Universe, managing editor of the Telegraph Sunday Magazine, assistant editor of Today, and consulting editor of the Evening Standard.
In a column today for WND, he crunched the numbers to show that such things developing in the ordinary course of events and those “mistakes” carrying no meaning are, well, unlikely.
Get the definitive “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?” by Dr. Jerome Corsi.
He said it’s not the first time he’s used mathematics to shoot down a popular theory.
“When I worked for Margaret Thatcher, I used math several times to catch scientific fraudsters. In 2007, for the first time, I used it to catch a Democrat blue-handed. That year Stuart Dimmock, a lorry-driver from Dartford, Kent, sought a high court order restraining HM Secretary of State for Education from circulating copies of Al Gore’s mawkish, sci-fi comedy horror movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ to schools in England. He did not want his two lads subjected to sanctimonious, hard-left politics in class,” he explains.
“At the invitation of the plaintiff’s lawyers, I provided scientific testimony that the movie contained numerous errors. Two eminent scientists concurred. The defendants caved. The court accepted that nine serious errors existed. All nine errors exaggerated the supposed climate threat. The probability that this had happened accidentally was accordingly … less than 0.002,” he wrote.
“Accordingly, the high court found Gore’s movie political, not scientific.”
So he said, “We can use the same method to determine the likelihood that Fu Manchu’s ‘birth certificate’ is genuine.”
He said the process simply estimates the probability that each of the “errors and anomalies” was accidental.
- The fact that the registrar’s signature-stamp on the electronic form can be moved about: 100:1 against.
- Registrar’s date-stamp ditto: 100:1 against.
- 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.)
- “Lavishly funded bureaucracy uses wonky typewriter:” 10:1
- Human error: Certificate number out of sequence: 25:1
- Incorrect birth date of father: 40:1
- Use of “African” contrary to written form-filling rules and 20 years before the term came into common use: 25:1
- Miscoded statistical data: 25:1 (official government estimate).
- White halo around letters: 10:1
- Chromatic aberration absent: 100:1
- Other identity documents: Anomalously worded abstract on short-form birth certificate: 100:1
- 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)
- 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.”
And he offered a suggestion:
“Here is what you can do about it. Write by Return Receipt Requested to the head of the Secret Service and demand an investigation into the forged ‘birth certificate.’ When you get no reply, write again by Return Receipt Requested giving the Secret Service two weeks to reply.
“When you still get no reply, apply to your federal district court for judicial review of the administrative decision of the Secret Service to refuse to do its job. It has a specific remit to investigate the authenticity of identification documents,” he explained.
“The courts cannot legitimately deny standing to any citizen seeking an order to tell the Secret Service to get on with its work rather than sullenly crossing the street, looking the other way, shutting its eyes, blocking its ears and singing ‘la-la-la’ in a hysterical monotone.”