Edwin Meese III (!) had a version of this that hits home. All elements of the definition are essential. I've even been that expert at only 54 miles from home. Fortunately, I knew what I was talking about, and a potentially bad program did not get started.

to give John Woodman an idea of what to expect, here are comments by Tom Harrison on Doc C's blog. John will not be debating rational people.
link: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/ ... -accurate/

It's official. Dr. Corsi has refused to appear for this debate.

I have emailed Joseph Farah and am waiting to hear a reply from him.

I'm sure he has something more important to do that entire month, like cultivating his porn 'stache.

Porn 'tache Farah



Porn 'tache Ron Jeremy



You decide which is sleazier, although one of them is at least honest.....

I've never seen Mr. Jeremy pretend to be anything but a guy with a really long dick--plus his portrayal of Jizz Master Zero in Orgasmo was inspired. On the other hand, Mr. Farah manages to dishonor the nobility of the "porn 'stach", which isn't easy to do. Pretty clear which one is little more than a big dildo...

Q. What's the difference between Ron Jeremy and Joey Farah?
A. One is a huge stunt dick, and the other is an actor.

John Woodman says that Douglas Vogt has pulled out of the upcoming debate with him on Mark Gillar's show.

Douglas Vogt Won’t Appear in Debate on Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Claims



Woodman gives Vogt a pass but I do not. Vogt proclaimed himself and expert, published a bunch of crap and accused the White House and/or Hawaii of committing a crime. Now he is "simply too busy with his business" to defend it. That's just a load of horse hockey.

Yikes, folks.

As long as these debate challenges are still being thrown around, I think it needs to be kept in mind that refusal to debate is not, in and of itself, an indication of a weak argument.

Rather, all too often you'll see offers to debate coming from conspiracy theorists or denialists themselves. Like creationists. Or Gene Ray. And it's the scientists and the scholars who refuse to participate in such a debate.

That's because it's an old and ongoing discussion in the scientific and skeptical communities whether such 'debates' are counterproductive. Simply taking the stage with an advocate for a ridiculous theory may create the impression of a legitimate controversy. And conspiracists operate in such a way that debating them can be incredibly difficult; they can produce a neverending stream of anomalies and questions that the other side simply can't thoroughly respond to. Remember how Polarik used to talk about no one had debunked all the aspects of his 100-page 'report'?

So I think it's too easy to say that Birthers are 'afraid' to debate. Maybe they are, but to employ that argument here is to suggest that it's justified when used by the other side.

So why do you think they refuse to debate Thefogbow?

I'm not sure. I would've thought that a debate over forgery claims would have been the first thing a Birther would jump to debate (which is why it would be the *last* thing I would want to have as a subject of debate, because it would be so easy for a strategic Birther to create the appearance of a win or at least a tie).

It may indeed be that they're afraid of losing, though. On the other hand, it may be the case that Vogt and Zebest and the other 'experts' simply aren't emotionally invested enough to care about debating. Particularly not with someone they see as an ideological enemy. It could be that, like many Birthers, this isn't something they truly take THAT seriously.

As for Corsi, I don't think he's afraid to debate Woodman so much as he's afraid to debate ANYONE on ANYTHING. You may have noticed that for a guy who's had his hands in Presidential politics since 2004, he really avoids personal confrontations. He loves to bluster from behind a microphone to a friendly audience, or make up crap in print, but have you ever heard him appear on a program that's even SLIGHTLY critical of him on-air? I listened to one radio interview he gave to a conservative host, where the host began asking questions about Media Matters' factual criticisms of "The Obama Nation." Corsi got incredibly irate, and openly threatened to end the interview if the host kept asking about Media Matters. After hearing that, I can't fathom Corsi willingly putting himself into a debate of any sort where he can't just quit at any moment.

Similarly, remember when Corsi appeared on Fox Business Network and got SLAMMED by the host? Corsi kept his calm on-air, but his subsequent radio interviews made it abundantly clear that he was not expecting that kind of interview, and he repeatedly tried to condemn Fox and the host. To Corsi, simply having to defend his own book in a book interview is something he's not willing to sign up for.

I applaud John Woodman for taking the high road and accepting Vogt's reasons for pulling out of the debate. They may all be valid reasons. However, Vogt has not addressed John Woodman's videos and book in any manner whatsoever. My opinion is that the reason for this is that he knows he was wrong and would have to backtrack on almost every point in his long report.

I also agree that refusing to debate is not in itself an admission of lack of belief in one's position. (Keep in mind I say that as one who is trying to set up a debate on de Vattel and Minor.) Some folks are not comfortable in the debate setting. The debate over validity of a document is particularly poorly suited to the radio format.

Yet he "apparently" (according to Orly's witness list) has time to go to GA to "testify" about his analysis of a forged pdf, which is worthless and irrelevant to the issue in GA, but... whatever.

Yabbut, he has to. She has subpoenas and stuff. He has no choice!

Corsi is a lot like Michael Savage, in that he is afraid to appear in a forum where he doesn't control the mic. Savage, like Corsi, would never appear in a forum where his "facts" could be challenged. Just won't happen.

And unless one is into the "game" of the debate format, in and of itself, I really don't see the point of a debate with a conspiracy theorist. If all one wants to do is get one's facts out, the Internet provides more than enough outlets, without the aggravation. I think you would have to enter the debate not for the purpose of "converting" anyone -- because that's impossible -- but simply for the mental gymnastics aspect of it; thinking quickly, etc.

Because we bane them or throw them in the birfer cage.

We have very good reasons for that, but that's what we do.

Debates are between equals. One does not debate a rabid dog.

I agree. A real debate requires intellectual honesty on both sides. It requires both sides to present their best evidence to back up their arguments. It does not mean that someone can throw up all kinds of claims, assumptions, suspicions, lies and smears and call them facts, evidence or proof. Their arguments must follow the rules of logic.

I am very sad to see the word 'debate' being used so loosely that it has lost it meaning. None of the GOP 'debates' have been real debates in any sense of the word. They are little more than political ads on a stage. It's no more a debate than a Miss America pageant. It's very close to the pageant-talking part of the beauty contest though they are not appearing in evening gowns or swimsuits. They appear in near identical business suit costumes with different colored ties.

NPR has a Sunday afternoon program which is an old-fashioned debate on a proposition and two opposing sides. It is very refreshing to listen to a real debate. It exercises the mind instead of numbing it.

Brain bleach, please.

I've love to debate Corsi, but not for the purpose of discrediting his theories. I'd be far more interested in pinning him down on multiple claims he's made that have been overtly false, and even inconsistent with his own accounts. Like when he's claimed to have brought back affidavits from Obama's grandmother Kenya...even though he came back from Kenya two weeks before that conversation took place. Or when he claimed that he had a mole in the Hawaii DoH who told him all sorts of things in February 2011...but the February 2011 drafts he produced don't mention any of the specific claims he later said the mole told him. (E.g., the mole supposedly read the entire long-form to him...and yet Corsi's articles don't include any of these new facts, like the doctor's name). Or how he's repeatedly claimed that the Smithsonian or the Library of Congress published that Obama was born at Queens...even though his own 'evidence' for this is a screenshot of a comment section on a news site.

In short, my objective wouldn't be to debunk his conspiracy claims. It would be to pin him down as a liar.

Is 'Slammed' your word or what the birthers called it? I've had to answer worse than that while trying to pitch a $50,000 capital project to a plant manager. If Corsi thought he was going to get pattycake on Fox, he didn't do his homework. FoxNews spent some coin, as did all the others, to find out if there was even the slightest bit of truth to the "Obama's Ineligible" story. They found nothing, they said that the week before the election. Gregg Jarrett was probably right in the middle of their investigation based on how informed he was. That was classic Gregg Jarrett, but he usually uses that style against liberals. Roger Ailes doesn't like birthers. I think when they booked Corsi, they deliberately subbed in Jarrett that day for David Asman. There was one thing Jarrett didn't pursue that if Corsi had picked up that Jarrett didn't know anything about it, he could have hammered on it more: Ann at Univ of Washington.

Mine. Like you say, Jarrett was informed, and he practically called Corsi a liar on-air. It was harsher than what you'd ever expect from most network interviewers; it was closer in tone to what you'd expect from, say, Rachel Maddow interviewing Corsi about the book (not equal to, just closer).

I think Birthers preferred to label it an 'ambush.' As if Corsi should have gotten a smiling, happy, positive interview, and shouldn't have been expected to actually explain problems with the book rather than tossing off talking points.

Tossing off is about all Corsi does well.

Loren, I think you would like to examine Corse or cross-examine him or even interrogate him in order to show up his patent lies. Wouldn't you like to get him on a witness stand under oath? I know I would like to see Stern do one of his cross-examinations under oath and watch Corsi become apoplectic purple .