Examine them closely and see if you can detect a common and specific identifying characteristic.
Posted on 10/01/2012 1:54:05 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
Examine them closely and see if you can detect a common and specific identifying characteristic.
Good work that. Perhaps lightning will strike twice? :)
Two reasons I can think of. They don't like where it leads, and they don't want to give the topic more publicity.
Your theory is obviously predicated on the belief that Jaws are not movable. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
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.
Like I said, you’re hanging on by the skin of (Stanley Anne’s) teeth.
Different angles, different ages. The teeth tell the truth.
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.)
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.)
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.
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!
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.