Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fever Dreams From My Real Father
Barackryphal ^ | September 29, 2012 | Loren Collins

Posted on 10/01/2012 1:54:05 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man

Fever Dreams From My Real Father #7: Gilbert's "Mockumentaries"

Dreams From My Real Father is not Joel Gilbert's first DVD documentary to present a wild conspiracy theory that attempts to completely rewrite the life of a world-famous individual with stories of cover-ups that extended over whole decades, and claims of astonishing new evidence that Gilbert says he uncovered. In 2010, Gilbert wrote and produced Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison, and in January 2012 he released Elvis Found Alive. Both were projects of Gilbert's production company, Highway 61 Entertainment.

Paul (available on Netflix streaming) makes the case that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced in the Beatles by a doppleganger. Gilbert's website claims that in 2005, he received a mysterious envelope with no return address, containing two microcasettes that featured George Harrison's extended confession of the cover-up. Images of the envelope and tapes are prominently featured in the film and on the website. In his introduction to the film, Gilbert says that he had the tapes tested by "three different forensic labs." The audio of 'George' is then used as the movie's narration for the following hour and a half.

Elvis, by contrast, argues that the King of Rock and Roll did not die in 1977, but instead faked his death and lived on as a federal drug enforcement agent named "Jon Burrows." As in Paul, Gilbert says he obtained previously-secret evidence to support this claim, this time through a Freedom of Information Act request. Gilbert features himself prominently in the film, as he claims to track down the living Elvis, who he interviews and convinces to record a new album. Somewhat inexplicably, Gilbert's Elvis even rants about Bill Ayers and "Barry Soetoro," conveniently segueing into Gilbert's next project.

Of course, in Dreams From My Real Father, the claim is that President Obama's entire lifestory is fictionalized, beginning before his birth, and that he is the biological and ideological son of poet Frank Marshall Davis. Just as in the other two films, Gilbert has insisted that this movie's claims are also based on astonishing evidence he gathered, even though the movie consists of almost nothing but existing footage and publicly available photos. Whatever extraordinary 'evidence' Gilbert obtained during his supposed trips to Hawaii somehow failed to make it onscreen. And just as Paul was narrated by a supposed George Harrison, and Elvis prominently featured the voiceover of a supposed elderly Mr. Presley, Dreams is narrated by an Obama soundalike.

There are plenty of reviews of these films online, detailing just how ridiculous and fact-impaired they are. The DVDTalk reviews are particularly thorough. One review offered up a description of Gilbert's work that perfectly encapsulates his Dreams as well: "The allegations are so preposterous, we were laughing out loud; had this been evidence offered in a courtroom, we’d have been removed."

With almost no time wasted, Paul gets off to an inauspicious start. Just after the opening montage and before Gilbert's introduction, this establishing shot appears:

If you think that looks Photoshopped...you're right. It's a stock image of an office building, with a fake "Highway 61 Entertainment" logo slapped on it:

Two minutes in, and Gilbert is already lying to his viewers. (Oh, and to any Birthers reading, that is how you prove something was Photoshopped.)

There's also an intriguing tidbit at the other end of Paul, in the closing credits. Lance Lewman is listed as one of two "Researchers" on the film. Lewman is a professional voiceover artist who just happened to also narrate two of Gilbert's other films: Atomic Jihad and Farewell Israel. If Gilbert simply hired his previous narrator to fake a British accent, then that makes his 'mysterious envelope' story all the more contemptible.

Nowadays, Gilbert would likely defend his Paul and Elvis films on the grounds that they weren't meant to be serious. On the Highway 61 website, they are listed under the category of "Spoofs/Mockumentaries."

That category, however, is a relatively new addition to Gilbert's company website. Previously, Paul and Elvis were promoted as straightforward documentaries, both in the films themselves and in Gilbert's promotional efforts. Gilbert's company website used to list Paul directly alongside his Middle-East documentary Atomic Jihad and one of his Bob Dylan retrospectives. As mentioned above, the introduction to Paul has Gilbert directly telling his audience a story about how he received the mysterious tapes in the mail, and how he spent five years having them scientifically tested. In this interview, Gilbert claims to have commissioned scientific testing on the mysterious tapes he says were mailed to him:

Gilbert: "we do have in L.A. forensic equipment in different film studios that we've worked with as well as somebody who's actually had some experience with the police. We went to three different places, each time trying to get a little more sophisticated in our comparison...we found out that the voice did match up quite well with some recordings and interviews from Harrison from the late '90s that he'd given and that it was extremely close to that. And that's how each time we tried to nail it a little closer to the point where we were told it's a high likelihood it is Harrison."

And, of course, if Paul was just a 'mockumentary' narrated by a George impersonator, then that means Gilbert was lying through his teeth when he discussed all these supposed forensic tests, and the "high likelihood" that it's Harrison's actual voice. In another interview, Gilbert claims his attorney said "the usage of Harrison’s voice is legal because the film is a both journalism and a documentary." Documentary, he said. Not spoof.

Nowhere is Gilbert's subsequent change-of-tune more obvious than on the film websites themselves.

The image to the right shows the Paul website as it appears today. It begins:

The "Paul is Dead" urban legend that exploded worldwide in 1969 was considered a hoax. In this mockumentary spoof of "Paul-Is-Dead," a voice on mysterious tapes reveals a secret Beatles history, chronicling McCartney's fatal accident. A package arrives from London with no return address. Inside are two mini-cassette audio tapes dated December 30, 1999 and labeled THE LAST TESTAMENT OF GEORGE HARRISON...

It plainly says "mockumentary spoof" in the second sentence. But that language wasn't added to the website until sometime after July 2011. The Paul website as it appeared in 2010, both before and after the DVD's September 2010 release, told a different story. It spotlighted Highway 61's role far more prominently, instead of the passive-voice construction of today ("A package arrives" "audio tapes dated"), and it never used the words "mockumentary" or "spoof" at all. Instead, as seen on the bottom right, it advertised the film as being a perfectly serious investigative expose:

Until now, the “Paul is Dead” mystery that exploded worldwide in 1969 was considered a hoax. However, in this film, George Harrison reveals a secret Beatles history, chronicling McCartney’s fatal accident, the cover up, dozens of unknown clues, and a dangerous cat and mouse game with “Maxwell,” the Beatles’ MI5 handler, as John Lennon became increasingly reckless with the secret. Harrison also insists that Lennon was assassinated in 1980 after he threatened to finally expose "Paul McCartney" as an imposter!

Highway 61 Entertainment has corroborated most of George Harrison’s stunning account of the conspiracy to hide McCartney’s tragic death. Harrison’s complete audio tapes narrate this film that includes all the newly unearthed evidence. The Last Testament of George Harrison may prove to be the most important document of rock and roll history, leaving little doubt that PAUL McCARTNEY REALLY IS DEAD!

What Gilbert says in 2012 is a "mockumentary spoof," in 2010 he was promoting as "the most important document of rock and roll history." Similarly, in 2012, he's claiming that the content of Dreams would earn any journalist a Pulitzer; what will he be saying about it two years from now?

Gilbert did the same rewriting of history with his Elvis movie, but even more blatantly. Here's a screenshot of ElvisFoundAlive.com circa the release of the DVD:

And here is ElvisFoundAlive.com as it appears today:

First sentence then: "ELVIS has been FOUND, ALIVE!"

First sentence now: "In this new mockumentary spoof of Elvis theories, Elvis has been FOUND ALIVE!"

And it wasn't just on his individual promotional websites that Gilbert did this. His original press releases and promotional materials treated the films as perfectly serious, and never used the word "mockumentary." Reviews noted that the movies were advertised as "documentaries." The DVD sleeves didn't call themselves "mockumentaries" or "spoofs." And Gilbert gave multiple interviews about the Paul film where he claimed the movie was a completely serious investigative piece, including doubling-down on the 'mysterious envelope' backstory.

Even over at the Internet Movie Database, Gilbert's Paul is today categorized under three genres: "Documentary | Fantasy | Music." But back in September 2010, just after the DVD was released, it had just one genre label: "Documentary."

When one is confronted with questionable evidence, a basic question to always ask is "How credible is the source?" Has he made grand pronouncements before, only to be subsequently proven wrong? Has he made similar mistakes in the past? Does he simply have a history of lying, and recycling the same sorts of lies?

In 2010, Joel Gilbert made a DVD movie about Paul McCartney where he declared to the world that he'd uncovered astonishing new evidence that would rewrite Paul's life as we know it...until he later changed his tune and said that it was just a big joke.

In 2011, Joel Gilbert made a DVD movie about Elvis Presley where he declared to the world that he'd uncovered astonishing new evidence that would rewrite Elvis' life as we know it...until he later changed his tune and said that it was just a big joke.

In 2012, Joel Gilbert made a DVD movie about Barack Obama where he declared to the world that he'd uncovered astonishing new evidence that would rewrite Obama's life as we know it...

...who do you think the joke's on this time?



TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; joelgilbert; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamabio; sad; stanleyanndunham; thisagain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
I wouldn't be surprised if Gilbert's DVD mass mailing is being bankrolled by some Chicago stimulus money. And apparently Alex Jones loves him some Joel Gilbert. He's not helpful.
1 posted on 10/01/2012 1:54:09 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Hilarious!


2 posted on 10/01/2012 2:16:15 PM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

“Dreams form my real father” is having an impact.

Attacking Gilbert proves it.


3 posted on 10/01/2012 2:41:23 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

The evidence he has uncovered is false because he’s... he’s.... he’s a nut!?

I believe the evidence stands on it’s own merits. Frank Davis took naked pictures of Stanley Ann Dunham in December of 1960, shortly after she became pregnant.

Didn’t see a rebuttal to those facts anywhere in your excerpt. What’s a matter? Can’t do anything other than ad hominem the messenger? So he’s a nut, but the facts he has uncovered speak for themselves. Let’s talk about the actual evidence, shall we?


4 posted on 10/01/2012 2:46:02 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
Attacking Gilbert proves it.

He must be hitting a nerve. Not a word about the evidence. All of it is how kooky and untrustworthy Gilbert is. And how does one do a search for a specific stock photo one thinks has been used to photoshop a fake building?

Given the effort spent researching this guy and his background, his work product must really be giving them fits.

5 posted on 10/01/2012 2:52:50 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Let’s talk about the actual evidence, shall we?

Forthcoming...it's a series.

6 posted on 10/01/2012 3:06:40 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
Forthcoming...it's a series.

Leave it to Democrat LorenC to get it bassackwards. I would think the proof ought to come before the smear. And why are you trafficking with Democrats?

7 posted on 10/01/2012 3:18:44 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Other than being anti-birther, what proof do you have of his political leanings that are liberal/Democrat?


8 posted on 10/01/2012 3:26:37 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Frank Davis took naked pictures of Stanley Ann Dunham in December of 1960, shortly after she became pregnant.

This is her in 1960:

1959.

1958

This is not her:

At least not her in 1960.

This is her in 1972:

Unless she had her jaw broken and reset twice, it ain't her.

9 posted on 10/01/2012 3:32:39 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Gilbert also made movies claiming Bob Dylan was still alive, so he must be a big fake.


10 posted on 10/01/2012 3:36:50 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x
I'm not sure the evidence is clear on Dylan...he hasn't mumbled a coherent lyric in 30 years.
11 posted on 10/01/2012 3:39:59 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man; Fred Nerks; LucyT; null and void; Smokeyblue; Flotsam_Jetsome; Plummz; PhilDragoo; ...

Nothing new here (except the picture of an office). Already discussed last August on FR.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2920965/posts

Are we allowed to post articles from ex-FReepers that were ZOTTED?


12 posted on 10/01/2012 3:48:31 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
what proof do you have of his political leanings that are liberal/Democrat?

Why are you defending lorenc? Are you over on Fogbow with him?
13 posted on 10/01/2012 3:53:36 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
Why are you defending lorenc?

Let me know if he got anything wrong in what I posted.

Are you over on Fogbow with him?

Nope.

14 posted on 10/01/2012 3:59:47 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Let’s talk about the actual evidence, shall we?

They don’t like to do that...ever. Wonder why?


15 posted on 10/01/2012 4:00:16 PM PDT by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
One more time...

Why are you defending lorenc?
16 posted on 10/01/2012 4:08:56 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man; DiogenesLamp
what proof do you have of his political leanings that are liberal/Democrat?

PolitiFact:
Loren Collins Libertarian from Georgia
17 posted on 10/01/2012 4:16:49 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

You’re not suggesting there aren’t a lot of libertarian-leaning FR members, are you?


18 posted on 10/01/2012 4:26:36 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
Other than being anti-birther, what proof do you have of his political leanings that are liberal/Democrat?

Well, first of all he is a weird looking loon that has an unhealthy obsession with this issue that can only be regarded as the act of a sane man *IF* he is actually working FOR the Obama Administration or supporting his policies in General. (Ideologically Liberal)

He's an attorney. As a group they are major contributors to the Democrat party. Throw a rock into a group of attorneys and the odds are you have hit a Democrat. He claims to have voted for Bob Barr, so that means he didn't vote for McCain. A Vote for anyone else was a vote for Obama. (And that's *IF* he's telling the truth)

His Church/School appears to be affiliated with the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement and the International Churches of Christ, which if I recall properly is a pretty Liberal group.

My recollection is that he was banned here at Free Republic. I would count that as a strike against him. I suppose I could dig around in his old postings here on Free Republic for a better analysis, but given that his Cohorts are people like Doctor Conspiracy, I would say that's the direction he leans.

He claims to be a libertarian, but his actions seem to be geared toward helping the Democrats.

19 posted on 10/01/2012 4:50:30 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: x

three faces of the same model

The model and Stanley Ann Dunham have different chins and noses

and nothing lines up because it simply isn't the same girl.

20 posted on 10/01/2012 4:57:39 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: x
Well, firstly, we have better evidence then just appearance to conclude that it is in fact her, but we actually also have pretty good appearance evidence that it *IS* her. You are just looking at the wrong pictures. You need to look at these pictures.

Examine them closely and see if you can detect a common and specific identifying characteristic.

21 posted on 10/01/2012 4:59:20 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
Are we allowed to post articles from ex-FReepers that were ZOTTED?

Good work that. Perhaps lightning will strike twice? :)

22 posted on 10/01/2012 5:01:00 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Josephat
They don’t like to do that...ever. Wonder why?

Two reasons I can think of. They don't like where it leads, and they don't want to give the topic more publicity.

23 posted on 10/01/2012 5:02:52 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Brown Deer

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2702976/posts?page=1468#1468

NICE FIND DL.


24 posted on 10/01/2012 5:03:52 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Thanks Fred. We always need someone to come along and cloudy the waters.

Your theory is obviously predicated on the belief that Jaws are not movable. :)

25 posted on 10/01/2012 5:10:20 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The image of Stanley Ann Dunham from a primary school photograph apparently taken in Vernon, Texas, shows that the image you posted, from the w.t.p.o.t.us blog, ISN'T THE SAME GIRL.

26 posted on 10/01/2012 5:13:25 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Thanks. But we should all really be thanking Brown Deer for bringing this to light. Thank you Brown Deer.

You do good work too Fred. As I have mentioned in the past, I am often amazed at how well you can ferret out bits and pieces that were simply unknown to me until you brought them out.

27 posted on 10/01/2012 5:14:17 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I think I know what isn’t movable. You show an image of a little girl that first appeared on the Nicoloff website, which incorrectly identified her as Stanley Ann Dunham, without any reference to the source of the image. That photograph was cropped from a group of children in which NONE of the children were identified. The same segment also maintained to show two adult couples sitting at a dinner table, and identified one couple as Stanley and Madelyn Dunham. Which identification was patently incorrect.

And you throw it at me that I have come along and muddied the waters?

You really aught to be ashamed of yourself.


28 posted on 10/01/2012 5:23:45 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
The image of Stanley Ann Dunham from a primary school photograph apparently taken in Vernon, Texas, shows that the image you posted, from the w.t.p.o.t.us blog, ISN'T THE SAME GIRL.

I wouldn't rely on the images as absolute proof when it is my understanding that the School Records indicate that they are the same girl.

I'll tell you what. I don't really need the younger picture of Stanley Ann with the crooked tooth, if you will acknowledge that the older picture with the crooked tooth in the same place is really Stanley Ann. Deal?

p.s. I have to go. (Responsibilities.) I'll be back shortly, hopefully less than an hour.

29 posted on 10/01/2012 5:24:04 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Brown Deer

The source of the little girl image you posted:

http://www.whale.to/b/nicoloff5.html

It’s from a load of garbage. I hesitated before I added my comment to the thread, I expected to be attacked as usual, you didn’t disappoint me.


30 posted on 10/01/2012 5:36:22 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

And you are planning to return and show me that both girls had slightly prominent front teeth (one a little more prominent than the other)and a small incisor (one a little smaller than the other) on the same side, right? You plan to use as proof the Model and Stanley Ann Dunham are the same girl because of a very slight similarity in their teeth - and ignore the fact that NOTHING ELSE in their facial features lines up - not the eyes, not the nose, not the chin, not the ears...

Mind you, Loren C (banned) wouldn't have bothered to write the posted article if the Joel Gilbert story wasn't damaging his hero, so I'm happy to let the misidentification stand. Lord knows the truth hasn't been much use so far, not while you're hanging onto the lie by the skin of your teeth...and Gilbert's film is the new standard.

31 posted on 10/01/2012 6:01:55 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Why do people keep picking the wrong photos? When viewed from the angle you chose, the crooked tooth is not prominent. Try this picture.

|

That upper left first incisor sticks out prominently from this angle. Bear in mind the nude picture is three years older than the younger (and clearer) picture of Stanley Ann. That there is something amiss on her top left incisors is unmistakable in both pictures.

32 posted on 10/01/2012 8:26:40 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
SAD nose asymmetrical; Model nose nothing similar. QED not one but two persons.
33 posted on 10/01/2012 8:32:12 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Fakistan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Like I said, you’re hanging on by the skin of (Stanley Anne’s) teeth.


34 posted on 10/01/2012 8:34:38 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
SAD nose asymmetrical; Model nose nothing similar. QED not one but two persons.

Different angles, different ages. The teeth tell the truth.

35 posted on 10/01/2012 8:46:09 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Like I said, you’re hanging on by the skin of (Stanley Anne’s) teeth.

Ha, good one! But seriously, if it didn't jut out like that, the light wouldn't catch it so. I noticed that subsequent pictures of Ann all show her teeth straight. (When you can find pictures of her smiling. I've noticed she has a lot of pictures where she doesn't smile with teeth. I think she was very self conscious about those crooked front teeth.)

36 posted on 10/01/2012 8:49:05 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo

LINK TO VIDEO PRESENTATION OF MODEL IMAGES:

http://www.obamasrealfather.com/breaking_news002/

I find it impossible to understand, why...if someone has seen the images from the video provided by Gilbert, they would fail to see that the images of the Model are the result of photographs taken over a long period...the girl starts out quite young and slim, wearing little make-up, and as she ages, she gains weight, wears more make-up, and a number of times is seen posing with other women, in different locations.
This is the girl, who throughout, Gilbert wants the viewer to believe is someone he identifies as ANN DUNAHM. Note, he doesn’t use her full, correct name. He names her ANN, which would allow him to deny he identified the woman as Stanley Ann Dunham. He’s a slippery sucker, he’s not telling us that Stanley Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis are the parents. He’s not that stupid, is he? It’s all smoke and mirrors and innuendo.
We are expected to accept that the photographs were taken by FMD in Hawaii, where, IF Stanley Ann Dunham ever actually was (althought there’s no physical evidence of it until 1963) she could only have been after graduation from high school in 1960 and when she left the island in the Fall of 1961, nine months of which she would have been pregnant (regardless of who the father was) which means she was available for posing for a period of a few months only...NOT YEARS AS THE IMAGES OF THE MODEL SHOWS.

But don’t take any notice of me, I think it’s wonderful, Loren C, the banned freeper who gave us so much grief, finds it worth the while to have a whinge about the Gilbert film being circulated. It’s hurting. I like that a lot, Loren C is squirming.

What I don’t like and will never understand, is why there are some who fequent these forums, even after seeing the photographs, even after being shown how much time elapsed between the images, knowing that Stanley Ann Dunham wasn’t in Hawaii long enough...STILL insist it has to be her. The only way that could be the case, is if FMD followed her around for years with a camera.

Two different girls for sure, and poor old Frank, he had nothing to do with it. (But don’t tell Loren C, the million DVD’s are out, and if someone would like to set up a collection to get another million out, I’ll contribute.)


37 posted on 10/01/2012 9:14:38 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
WHO Des Moines afternoon host Simon Conway had Gilbert as guest Friday.

Host was fascinated. Gilbert was linking ideology.

The Model is not SAD. Gilbertian marketing must insist the untrue is so.

The takeaway above the fray is that the false messiah is not taken at face value.

Given the baseline of no-credibility, the rest is to sweep the Artist Formerly Known As Barry into history's dustbin.


38 posted on 10/01/2012 9:20:55 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Fakistan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo

The model, wearing her favourite earrings. I've lost count of the number of times I've been told the black and white images and the tinted images are not the same girl!

39 posted on 10/01/2012 9:51:30 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
James Dean today.


40 posted on 10/01/2012 9:56:25 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
Jim Morrison today.


41 posted on 10/01/2012 9:56:57 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

When the music’s over...turn out the lights.


42 posted on 10/01/2012 10:01:43 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo

Awww..shucks...he’s really riled up, there’s an update now and more to come, I wanna say, Loren C, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

http://barackryphal.blogspot.com.au/search?updated-min=2012-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=12

“... In any case, those nude photo claims will be annihilated for good in the final installment of this series. If you haven’t been convinced yet of Gilbert’s rampant dishonesty and disingenuousness, you will be.”

(Now you know how it feels, the lie went halway ‘round the world before truth had time to get its pants on.)


43 posted on 10/01/2012 10:08:34 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Fred, I hate to suggest you are out and out lying, because I really think you try to be honest, but it looks to me like you are juxtaposing pictures of Marci Moore with Stanley Ann to create the appearance that they are the same woman.

Anyone who's seen the rest of the Marci Moore pictures knows instantly that they are not the same woman, and I cannot fathom why you are attempting to create the impression that they are.

Why are you doing that?

44 posted on 10/01/2012 10:42:31 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Well we know Lauren Collins is reading this stuff because he quickly changed the weird looking picture of himself that I linked.

Good to know I got to ya twerp. Ha ha ha ha ha...

45 posted on 10/01/2012 10:46:53 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Thanks for the Ping.

bbl


46 posted on 10/01/2012 11:29:37 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome ("Obama": His entire life is Photoshopped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I’m doing that because I’m an idiot and I need a new hobby. Thanks for reminding me.


47 posted on 10/02/2012 12:38:17 AM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; PA-RIVER
"The teeth tell the truth."

That they do.

"But, but, but then that would mean that the MX-as-the-real-father narrative would be untrue! That simply cannot be after all I've invested in time and emotion in running down that angle!"

I guess I came too late to this party to have become entrenched in one particular camp as far as what the deception truly is. To my mind, the scenario that Gilbert has laid out seems the most logical/plausible at current, even if it is not complete either. I've at least watched the film, which is more than can be said for many naysayers, from what I've read on this forum.

The fact that zotted LorenC is up in arms over it makes it all the more likely to be hitting very close to home, IMNSHO.

48 posted on 10/02/2012 2:32:30 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome ("Obama": His entire life is Photoshopped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
I’m doing that because I’m an idiot and I need a new hobby. Thanks for reminding me.

We all do. I personally think your heart is in the right place, but I also think you are sometimes overzealous, and too willing to seize on inconclusive or dubious data, and too quick to reject provable information. (Such as that picture of the young girl with the crooked tooth not being Stanley Ann Dunham.) You have a rare talent for finding information though, i'll grant you that.

49 posted on 10/02/2012 7:17:45 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
...I personally think your heart is in the right place, but I also think you are sometimes overzealous, and too willing to seize on inconclusive or dubious data, and too quick to reject provable information.

Same thing applies to you...

(Such as that picture of the young girl with the crooked tooth not being Stanley Ann Dunham.)

I gave you the link to where that image came from, that website is the same as identified Madelyn and Stanley Armour Dunham as one couple at a dinner table, and if you believe that identification, there's no hope for you...Nicoloff finished off that series by showing, in glorious colour, that zero had reptile skin. That's not where I would choose to collect information - it's written for entertainment value, it's Disney-like.

You have a rare talent for finding information though, i'll grant you that.

I don't have anything other than a reasonably good memory, and I have been following this much longer than you, I joined in 2003, you in 2011 iirc. You're trying to teach an old dog new tricks, and it won't work while you are calling me a liar and being patronizing.

50 posted on 10/02/2012 2:23:25 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson