Larry and I have decided to continue a discussion we were having recently. Our objective is to understand each other better because Larry and I have a difficult time communicating. It doesn’t really matter what the subject is because it happens no matter what we talk about. We just happened to be discussing the Obama eligibility issue on Sandy’s recent post, and we were specifically talking about the forensic evidence that has been presented by a couple of anonymous analysts claiming to be forensic experts on the subject of Obama’s birth certificate that has been posted on the WWW on sites like Fact Check.org.
I decided that Larry’s response to me needed to be taken apart so that I could be sure that I understood what he had written. We haven’t actually gotten very far. We both agreed that we would take the discussion to a separate post.
This is the comment Larry made that I am deciphering with his help.
Larry M. Nov 30, 2010, 2:34pm EST
"If I am not mistaken this is an anonymous report (I have no idea who "techdude" is) on a 2007 document from Hawaii. The document purports to be a certificate of life birth. The report claims that the document is a forgery.
Let's assume that the document is a forgery for the moment. What does that have to do with whether Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961? I should think the best evidence would be that Obama was born somewhere else. Evidence that Obama was not born in any of the hospitals or clinics on Hawaii during the early 1960s would be second best.
This is evidence of neither. At best it shows that someone created a fake record from Hawaii that purported to be a certificate of live birth in 1961. But that tells us nothing about whether Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
Now concerning the quality of this evidence. The fact that it is anonymous takes away considerable credibility. The fact that we have no idea where "techdude" got the document still further lessens credibility. He could have created it himself for all we know. The point is that this is hardly evidence that one would go to court with and certainly not evidence that one would put any faith in.
Do you have any evidence that would indicate Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii? Do you have evidence that his mother was not a U.S. citizen at the time?"
So far, Larry has agreed that the anonymity of the analysts about whom we were speaking, Techdude and Polarik, who both use screen names instead of their own names because they wish to be anonymous for security reasons that they have given, has nothing to do with judgment of the content of what they have reported. This can be verified from the last comments to the issue by Larry and me on Sandy’s post.
Sue B. to Larry M.: “Okay, so you're saying that you are basing your judgment on the material purported to have come from their writing despite their anonymity. Is that correct?”
Larry M. to Sue B.: “That is correct.”
This covers Larry’s first paragraph in the comment quoted above.
The comment thread below will start with Larry’s second paragraph.
I would ask that anyone else who wishes to contribute in this post would not interrupt the thread where Larry and I are discussing. If you wish to leave any comment, please start another sub-thread, and do not continue in ours. If anyone does interrupt our thread, I will delete the comment and repost it in another thread. It is not my intention to censor anyone’s comments. You can write whatever you want to say, and it will remain, but it cannot remain in the first thread of this post’s comments that is reserved for Larry and me. Thank you for your cooperation in advance.