John Woodman's Retirement Party - join the fun!

Foggy · **Posted:** Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:53 am

An email invitation to birthers and anti-birthers:

Quote:

Hi,

After more than a year of research, writing and commentary on Obama-related eligibility issues, including a book and more recently, a series of blog posts on the meaning of "natural born citizen," I will very shortly be retiring from this issue.

I would like to invite you to my "retirement party" -- which is being kicked off right now with the first installment of my final blog article on Obama eligibility issues.

In this final article, I'll be taking a look at what Americans have understood the term "natural born citizen" to mean throughout American history.

The first post covers the period of history before and up through the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

I am inviting people on both the "birther" and "anti-birther" sides of the issue to show up and discuss the issues. So it promises to be an interesting time!

If you'd like to come and join the conversation, it'll be taking place over at:

http://www.obamabirthbook.com

Sincerely,

John Woodman

chinacreekpj · **Joined:** Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:09 pm **Posts:** 1334

Is he a member of this forum?

Bob Ross · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:47 am

His second article on natural born citizenship is definitely worth a read.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:01 am

chinacreekpj wrote:

Is he a member of this forum?

He is "jmw" at TFB but I do not think he posts here any longer.

chinacreekpj · **Joined:** Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:09 pm **Posts:** 1334

How odd.

Foggy · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:11 am

He's no Obot, as he'll be glad to tell you. I suspect he thinks we're Obama worshipers.

When he started this, he was PISSED that Obama didn't release the LFBC in time to save Lakin. I've educated him about that, as have many, many others.

But he's still not an Obot. He may be planning to vote for Rmoney. But he did us a great service anyway.

PatGund · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:07 pm

Foggy wrote:

He's no Obot, as he'll be glad to tell you. I suspect he thinks we're Obama worshipers.

When he started this, he was PISSED that Obama didn't release the LFBC in time to save Lakin. I've educated him about that, as have many, many others.

But he's still not an Obot. He may be planning to vote for Rmoney. But he did us a great service anyway.

You know, from day one I've made it clear to people. Either agree with President Obama or plan to vote for someone else in 2012 if you don't agree with him.

But at least make your disagreement based in facts and reality other than lies.

I have no problem with John Woodman in this regard.

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

IMO, John's work is invaluable for two important reasons:

1) He has a high regard for the truth and has followed the evidence wherever it led, even if his preconceptions or political leanings pointed elsewhere; and

2) He has had the patience -- and the volubility! -- to go point-for-point against windbags like Mario.

Even if it meant long hours of research and writing, John has been willing to do it in the name of Truth. It's no wonder that his wife urged him to be done with it.

John, thank you.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23925

Indeed, Pat.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:27 pm

The current article is a real killer for the Birthers. He looked at early translations of the US Constitution into French, Spanish and Italian. None of the translations support the notion that two parents must be citizens. Most of them translate natural born citizen roughly to "born a citizen", "US citizen at birth" or native.

Foggy · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:40 pm

Haven't had time to read Pt. 2 yet. I saw in Pt. 1 that the only birther who showed up to play was a "white males only" birther, ala Fraser.

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1452

Reality Check wrote:

The current article is a real killer for the Birthers. He looked at early translations of the US Constitution into French, Spanish and Italian. None of the translations support the notion that two parents must be citizens. Most of them translate natural born citizen roughly to "born a citizen", "US citizen at birth" or native.

I believe this may be why we haven't seen a single member of the "Usual Suspects" from Birthistan making comments. It would 1. Give credence to Woodman's writings in their eyes - and - 2. What can you argue when the truth is spelled out so plainly and logically? :mrgreen:

Reality Check · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:02 pm

Mario seems to have retreated back to his blog for a while. He posted probably a hundred comments at Doc's last week and a bunch at Woodman's before that but now he is answering everyone from his own blog in his multi-part bits of blather.

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:19 pm

Reality Check wrote:

The current article is a real killer for the Birthers. He looked at early translations of the US Constitution into French, Spanish and Italian. None of the translations support the notion that two parents must be citizens. Most of them translate natural born citizen roughly to "born a citizen", "US citizen at birth" or native.

Academia is screwed up if Timmeh can get a degree from his random musings and John Woodman can produce a thesis like this without academic recognition. John spent way more time on his, too.

Slartibartfast · **Posted:** Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:06 am

I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but John Woodman has come out of retirement (temporarily) to tell us a real computer expert's opinion on an algorithm being used to generate the image of the LFBC.

He asked a Brazilian professor who is one of the inventors of the technology what he thought about the LFBC---definitely worth a read...

=D>

$\:D/$

Reality Check · **Posted:** Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:08 am

This is an important article. Professor de Queiroz is the "gold standard" if there is such a person on Mixed Raster Content Compression and similar compression techniques. As John mentions he and his group hold six of the first dozen patents issued on MRC. John and I independently contacted Professor de Queiroz about six weeks ago. He gave me a similar answer. I spoke with John and found he had also contacted the professor and received a reply. I deferred to John to write an article since he is a better writer and would take the time to do a good job with it. I have contacted an expert in DJVU but I have not heard back from him. I think we can say after this article that Garrett Papit's claims have been destroyed.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

John Woodman's Retirement Party - join the fun!

Who is online