Skip to comments.Fever Dreams From My Real Father #1: The Nude Photos Debunked
Posted on 10/03/2012 7:12:56 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
At the center of Gilbert's theory that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's father is a series of nude and fetish photographs. They were the focus of his second promotional video for the DVD. They're featured prominently on his website, and he consistently references them in radio interviews. Radio host Peter Boyles has called them the "Rosetta Stone" that will unlock Obama's secret past, and Alex Jones declared "It's her in these photos."
The "her" to which Jones refers is Obama's mother Ann Dunham, who Gilbert claims is the woman depicted in these photos. Three of the photos were originally posted on the website of The Astute Bloggers in October 2008, where it was claimed that they had been forwarded by a reader. Even though one photo plainly bore a watermark of "free-vintage-porn.com", some people were convinced that the photos were of Ann Dunham. Over time, the claim evolved so that it was Frank Marshall Davis who was said to have taken the photos as well (perhaps an unsurprising development, as The Astute Bloggers website was also responsible for starting the rumor that Frank was Obama's father).
Here's what the narrator of Dreams From My Real Father has to say on the matter:
"At some point, she agreed to pose. These photos were taken a few weeks before Christmas 1960, when Mom was about five weeks pregnant with me. There's no mistaking: this is MY mama."Gilbert has further elaborated on the photos outside the film itself. In his website Q&A:
I also obtained seven indecent photos of Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, taken at Frank Marshall Davis’ house, suggesting an intimate connection between Dunham and Davis...On the 'Breaking News' portion of his website:
What new revelations are in Dreams from My Real Father?
First, I make the case that Barack Obama’s real father was Communist Frank Marshall Davis. Next, the relationship between Davis and Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, is illustrated with seven indecent photographs of Dunham, some including other women, taken at Frank Marshall Davis’ house in Honolulu.
Racy photos of Barack Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, have recently surfaced in vintage fetish and bondage magazines. The photos, taken at Frank Marshall Davis' house in Honolulu, appeared in Bizarre Life, Exotique, Secret Pleasures, and Battling Babes.And in interviews:
But if you look at the many, many photos of Ann Dunham and the naked girl in the pictures -- especially you can see her teeth; she has some recessed teeth on the left side -- it's very obviously Ann Dunham.
Most people didn't take the photo claim very seriously, because the woman in the pictures doesn't really look all that much like Ann Dunham. Sure, she bears a passing resemblance, in the same sense that as a bespectacled young white guy, I bear a passing resemblance to Daniel Radcliffe. Frankly, the woman in the photos looks a lot more like Joan Collins than Ann Dunham.
Since their original appearance in 2008, some have attempted to debunk the photos by identifying the model. This has proven fruitless, and unsurprisingly so; many mid-century nude and fetish models were nameless faces, anonymous to the world at large.
To his credit, Gilbert did somehow locate additional photos of the mystery woman he claims is Ann. And as noted above, he named several magazines where he claims they appeared. Both on his website and in Dreams, he shows the covers of six specific issues, and the website (on the right) flatly states "Frank Marshall Davis' photos of Ann Dunham appear in these vintage men's magazines." The magazines Gilbert shows are:
Bizarre Life #9
The last three magazines were published in 1958, 1957, and 1969, respectively. Exotique was published between 1955 and 1959.
Curiously, though, the pictures Gilbert shows appear in NONE of the issues he identifies. I consulted with the owner of a fansite for these magazines, who checked and confirmed that Gilbert's photos are nowhere to be seen in these issues. I personally reviewed copies of Exotique #14, Battling Babes and Secret Pleasures, and they included NO pictures of the mystery model.
What Secret Pleasures DID feature, on page 26, was this photo:
Who is the woman? I have no idea. But look at the chair she's seated on. At the pillow in the chair. At the window behind her. At the record player to her right, and the records peeking out below her leg. At the cabinet behind her, and at the floor beneath her. Look familiar?
That's right, it's the exact same setting as the 'Ann' photos. Published in a 1958 men's magazine. And it's not the only one. From Exotique #25, pages 7 and 40, respectively:
Again, does that setting look familiar? Same couch, same floor, same picture on the wall, even the same random pillow arrangement on top of the couch as seen in other photos in Gilbert's videos. The woman is even wearing the same spiked-ball earrings as Gilbert's 'Ann'. Who is she? I don't know, but she looks an awful lot like the woman who appears with Gilbert's 'Ann' in several photos in his movie.
Now granted, these photos alone don't prove that the mystery model couldn't be Ann. Perhaps Davis took these in 1958, and he didn't change the arrangement of his room for two years. That's odd, and hardly the most compelling explanation, but it's not impossible. (Even though Gilbert himself would likely concede that these are from the same photoshoot.)
Unfortunately for Gilbert, that's not all. Further up this post, there's a screenshot of Gilbert's own website, with a video still that shows the woman he claims is 'Ann' sitting on a couch, pulling a black opera glove onto her left arm. That image appears in Gilbert's Dreams and in his promotional videos as well, but he's never released a full-size copy of that photo.
I found one, however:
This picture appeared in Exotique #23, on page 22. In 1958. When Ann Dunham was only 15 years old. Two years before Ann Dunham even moved to Hawaii.
It can also be found reprinted in volume 2 of the 3-volume Exotique hardcover collection.
We may never know who the mystery model is. But the Dunham family didn't move to Hawaii until the summer of 1960. Unless Ann Dunham had access to a time machine in the 1960s, it simply cannot be her.
Moreover, Joel Gilbert knows this. He found that opera glove photo; it was not circulating the web as an 'Ann' photo prior to his videos. He knows it came from Exotique, a magazine that ceased publication in 1959. From WND: "Gilbert found that several of the photos in the collection appeared in a magazine called Exotique, published by pin-up photographer Leonard Burtman, who worked in New York City."
Thus he knows this picture was published two years before Ann first stepped foot in Hawaii, years before she could have met Frank Marshall Davis. And yet he explicitly claims, multiple times, that the photo was TAKEN at Christmastime 1960. This is not a lie of ignorance or mistake; it is a lie of pure, fully-informed malice.
And that's the BEST-case scenario for Gilbert. Gilbert knows that Ann was born in 1942, and he knows he found these pictures in 1958 magazines. If Gilbert truly believes that these ARE somehow pictures of a 15-year-old Ann, then he's been distributing hundreds of thousands of DVDs featuring nude and erotic pictures of someone he believes to be an underage girl.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Gilbert has thus far refused to disclose the actual sources of the erotic photos he put in his videos. He identified six issues, none of which checked out, and five of which contradict his 1960 date anyway. As shown above, to disclose the true issues would be to destroy his own claim that the photos are of Ann, and to let his audience know that he's lying to them. And so he refuses to cite his sources, even when they're just magazine issue numbers.
So there you have it. The people who've said 'Frank Davis took naked pictures of Stanley Ann Dunham in December of 1960' are provably wrong. The woman they claim is Ann was having her photographs from this very shoot published at least as early as 1958. When Ann was a 15-year-old in Washington, years before she ever stepped foot on Hawaii or could have conceivably even met Frank Marshall Davis. Joel Gilbert has unnecessarily obscured the actual publication dates of the pictures he found, because he knows those simple facts will prove to everyone that he's lying about them being taken in 1960, and lying about Frank Marshall Davis taking them of Ann, and lying about them being evidence of an intimate relationship between Frank and Ann.
As I wrote in my first post in this series, "I can't promise that I'll convince everyone that Joel Gilbert is a charlatan and his film is a joke, but I think by this time next week, anyone who continues to trust Gilbert has some depressingly low standards for what they'll believe." I'm sure some people will still prefer to believe in him and his photos, and nothing will convince them otherwise. To them, I can only say this: just as Joel Gilbert has known for months, you now know that his photos were being published in 1958. Possibly even earlier. So if you still want to believe that the woman in those photos is Ann Dunham, that means you also have to believe that the woman in those photos is no more than 15 years old. Keep that in mind as you talk about them, and post them online, and save them on your computer. I know you're not doing anything illegal or morally disgusting (because it's not Ann), but what are you telling yourselves?
Finally, even though I've reached #1 in this series and I think I've solidly proven my case, I had two more research developments on Monday that I'll be typing up in the next few days. So be sure to keep an eye out for those to come.
Got to appreciate taking one for the team!!!
It IS zero's mother - Result: who cares.
It IS NOT zero's mother - Result: who cares.
It IS NOT someone that looks like zero's mother - Result: who cares.
It is entirely Photo-shopped: - Result: who cares.
I really don't give a hoot about where zero was born, who his father is/was, or what his mother did 50 years ago. My concern is about what he is doing TODAY - and that is killing the country that was and is the last best hope for humanity.
This is why I don’t believe its Obamas Mom in the pictures.
If it was they would have surely been taken before Obama was born.. isn’t that the time frame she was around frank?
Now look at the picture where She is kneeling next to Obama in the pirate costume, the picture has been posted many times. Obamas mother looks like she is about 15, and Obama is probably two.
The nudes are of a much older woman. And I think would have had to be taken when Obama was closer two ten or fifteen...
I have always wondered from that picture just how old she really was when he was born, she looks SO young in that shot ...
Believe me I am not trying to defend either one, logically it doesn’t seem the time line could be correct for it to be her.
I think more people would give a hoot if accurate information regarding a presidents' formative years and background were made available. We have decent information on Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagan, and others. Why not on Zero? And why is it that whatever comes to light on Zero is really bad news?
I don’t care either...this is a stupid distraction - we have huge legitimate complaints against this disaster of a POTUS.
I’m afraid this sort of dubious trash could backfire. How is zero supposed to be responsible for what his mother did before he was born? However the fact that she was an anti-American is relevant IMHO.
Since she isn't running for President, I didn't. However, I appreciate the investigative work here. Unfortunately, by including the now bogus pics, it invalidates the whole video for most recipients.
Who cares about the truth 50 years ago, esp. from a story that no one has ever heard of?
There is an anti-colonialist Marxist in the WH who is doing everything in and outside the power of his office to permanently cripple America... and THAT is the truth.
Blogger claims naked “Ann” pics can't be Stanley Ann Dunham because the pics were published in 1958 when Stanley Ann was 16 (he repeatedly says 15 even while stating she was born in 1942) and in WA in HS.
In any case, even if Ann had posed in a naked group photo shoot on a date when she would already have been pregnant didn't mean the photographer did the deed. Only forensic discovery could prove that (at this point, DNA). That ain't happening. I have always maintained that Barry looking so close to his claimed half brother, David, and notable resemblance to his other half-brothers, Mark and George, makes it likely that BHO Sr. is his bio-dad.
Not having Davis as the dad would put NBC eligibility back in play due to having a non-US citizen dad, depending on how SCOTUS would rule, should a case ever get there.
If what Loren says about seeing the girl in those magazines published before 1960 is true, then it effectively rules out the possibility that any of those pictures are of Stanley Ann. (The Gilbert 7)
Where his theory has a weak spot is in proving that the First three pictures are of the same woman as are the pictures which Gilbert subsequently discovered. I have never examined the Gilbert pictures closely, I merely accepted Gilbert's contention that they were of the same woman, and a casual glance looks close enough to accept his claim in the absence of any reason to look further. When they were first discovered, I contacted his company asking for the best image files of them that he had available, and the response I got back was "Buy the movie", which put me off.
Many people merely accepted Gilbert's word that these pictures were of the same woman as the original three, based on the fact that they were taken in the same setting as the original three. Now that Loren has pointed out another picture of an obviously different woman taken in the same setting, it makes it very clear that this setting was likely used to take quite a lot of nude pictures of quite a lot of nude women, and quite likely over a several year period.
Now if Loren has found any of the first three pictures in one of those magazines published prior to 1960, he has proven his case, yet I don't see him claiming that. He merely implies that since the Gilbert pictures must have been taken in 1958 or so, then so must have the original three. This has not been established as a fact. Does LorenC realize that he is implying something is true rather than establishing concrete proof? If he has done this consciously, then it is an attempt to mislead, the very complaint he has been making against Gilbert.
I personally regard Gilbert and LorenC as not being much different in this regard, merely fighting on opposite sides. LorenC has proven that Gilbert is is a bit of a nut, (Which anyone could see from just looking at his "Stanly worked for the CIA theory") and that he is intentionally deceiving people about the pictures he's found, and therefore he cannot be trusted on his other statements without some sort of proof backing him up.
I would be interested to see if Gilbert actually has the proof he claims. (The Photographs he took of the floor and the room.) If he does, he still cannot win back his credibility, but he might still salvage his theory.
This should have been the first article posted.
The three tinted images we saw years ago, are the same woman as the black and white images he recently discovered, shown above. His 'weak spot' is that the woman isn't Stanley Ann Dunham.
His 'weak spot' is that the woman isn't Stanley Ann Dunham.
Oh! So close! Except for that one, little detail!
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.