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

To: Tex-Con-Man
This is about the only one of his postings that i've seen so far that has any useful information in it. It had already been pointed out by others that the Magazine issues he's cited were the wrong years to be Ann, and were merely used as props.

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.

11 posted on 10/03/2012 10:21:38 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp; Brown Deer; PhilDragoo
...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...

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.

13 posted on 10/05/2012 7:49:13 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

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