Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti-Obama DVD floods local mailboxes
Orlando Sentinel ^ | 10-18-2012 | Jim Stratton

Posted on 10/25/2012 5:12:27 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather

A conservative, California-based filmmaker said this week that his company is distributing more than a million free copies of a conspiracy-laden DVD that claims much of what the public knows about President Barack Obama's early life is false.

The movie — called "Dreams From My Real Father" — began appearing in Central Florida mailboxes sometime last week.

It is the work of Joel Gilbert, a director whose other movies have focused on everything from militant Islam to Bob Dylan to Elvis Presley. He said the DVD is being sent to swing states, including Florida and Ohio, but would not say who is financing the project or how much the distribution costs.

Gilbert's central — and widely denounced — claim is that Obama's father was not a Kenyan named Barack Obama but a black poet and journalist named Frank Marshall Davis. Marshall was a labor activist investigated in the 1940s and 1950s for ties to the American Communist Party.

(Excerpt) Read more at articles.orlandosentinel.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: antiobama; dvd; floods; frankmarshalldavis; gilbert; mailboxes; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
I happened to see Orlando tv station WFTV talking about this at 6pm tonight and they showed Frank Marshall Davis and more! The political analyst said it was insidious that this is hitting all the mail boxes and it could influence the election. LOL!
1 posted on 10/25/2012 5:12:27 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
NOTHING about OBAMA is as reprehensible as the TRUTH.

“Mission Accomplished!”



2 posted on 10/25/2012 5:15:52 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Vi veri veniversum vivus vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
I would just love to receive a copy of this DVD, however, I live in one of the bluest of blue states and they rightly don’t need to throw good money here.
3 posted on 10/25/2012 5:24:40 PM PDT by immadashell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

I would just love to receive a copy of this DVD, however, I live in one of the bluest of blue states and they rightly don’t need to throw good money here.


4 posted on 10/25/2012 5:25:10 PM PDT by immadashell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: immadashell

I want one too. Might find them on Ebay, I haven’t looked yet.


5 posted on 10/25/2012 5:28:58 PM PDT by LizardQueen (The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: immadashell

It is available on Netflix instant download. Use free trial to watch.


6 posted on 10/25/2012 5:35:23 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

I watched it on netflix a couple weeks ago. Highly recommend.


7 posted on 10/25/2012 5:37:46 PM PDT by upsdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

For the money, Netflix is one of the best entertainment options out there. I view it on my 60in LED, not my computer. I prefer old tv shows and movies to the crap that is put out today.


8 posted on 10/25/2012 5:40:31 PM PDT by upsdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: immadashell

It is available on Netflix streaming. I watched it last weekend, and even though I am well versed in 0bama’s sordid history, it was a real eye opener.


9 posted on 10/25/2012 5:51:24 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty ( For AMERICA's sake: Vote for the Mormon, NOT the muslim; The Capitalist, NOT the Communist! FUBO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

I am an Amazon Prime member and I just checked Amazon. I can stream it for free and rent it for 2.95. NEAT!!!


10 posted on 10/25/2012 6:03:09 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather (Yuri Bezmenov (KGB Defector) - "Kick The Communists Out of Your Govt. & Don't Accept Their Goodies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

What needs to happen is for some rich R benefactor to buy a whole cable channel for the entire week before an election. Heck there’s plenty of crap channels that are carried on most cable systems to choose from, then run “2016” and this video non-stop.


11 posted on 10/25/2012 6:26:42 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

LOL! Great idea!


12 posted on 10/25/2012 6:34:54 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather (Yuri Bezmenov (KGB Defector) - "Kick The Communists Out of Your Govt. & Don't Accept Their Goodies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: upsdriver

I love Netflix instant streaming! I watch it on my big screen TV through my Blu-Ray player. I watch old Leave it to Beaver episodes, Adam 12, Star Trek, and tons of old movies. I might add Hulu Plus as well. They have some things that Netflix doesn’t have. You’re right. It sure beats what they have on TV today, especially what they’re trying to pass off as comedy.


13 posted on 10/25/2012 6:55:06 PM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: murron

Yeah, I’ve watched several series from first to last. Just finished The Andy Griffith Show, one of my all time favorites. James Bond movies are going off Nov 1 so that’s what I’ve been watching the past few nights.

We have Amazon Prime also but I’m not as into that one. It isn’t as user friendly. I might subscribe to Hulu Plus as well for the same reasons as yours.


14 posted on 10/25/2012 7:44:04 PM PDT by upsdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

Galileos central — and widely denounced — claim is that the Earth orbits the sun.


15 posted on 10/25/2012 7:54:41 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
What needs to happen is for some rich R benefactor to buy a whole cable channel for the entire week before an election. Heck there’s plenty of crap channels that are carried on most cable systems to choose from, then run “2016” and this video non-stop.

At first I also LOL, but then seriously, someone like Trump, the Koch brothers - anyone with the bucks who wants to Fight for America, Could Do This. Let the radio and TV talkers hawk it and a lot of Americans would watch it, if nothing else, out of curiosity. If it's on 24/7, a lot of people would see them. If Ohio and a few other states come down to 100,000 votes, this could swing it. Any takers?

16 posted on 10/25/2012 8:09:07 PM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
Frank Marshall Davis is not Obama's real father. This "documentary" is nothing but a "Loose Change" kinda hoax. The director has a history of making crazy conspiracy videos. (Paul McCartney Really is Dead and Elvis Found Alive.)

Below are links that thoroughly debunk claims made in the DVD....

This first picture is a link to a YouTube video which proves the girl in this DVD is NOT Stanley Ann Dunham...

This image of some other fine DVD's by Director Joel Glbert is a link to a website that contains an in-depth look into Gilbert and Dreams from My Real Father...including an interview with the man who actually owns the home Frank Marshall Davis lived in. All information is sourced and linked where possible.

BOOOO-OOOOO-OOOOOO-GUS!

17 posted on 10/25/2012 11:25:04 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (Muppet season now open - no bag limit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
I looked at the video. It is not as compelling as I had expected it to be. It did demonstrate that Gilbert is lying, but it didn't destroy the possibility that the original three photographs (posted by John Ray) are Ann Dunham.

The fact that so many women are photographed in the same setting and wearing the same jewelry and outfits indicates that this stuff was reused from model to model. It doesn't prove that Ann was not one among them.

The photographs Gilbert discovered only have a little resemblence to the photographs which John Ray discovered. The only reason I thought they might be the same woman was BECAUSE of the Jewelry and Shoes. Point out that those were put on many different women and the sense of resemblence disappears.

As Fred Nerks pointed out, the Women appear to have different length chins,

with the John Ray photographs showing what appears to be a much longer chin than is shown in the Gilbert Photographs.

LorenC has disproven the Gilbert Photographs well enough, but he has not disproven the John Ray photographs, at least as far as I can tell. If Frank Davis was doing this stuff from the 50s onward, Stanley Ann may just happen to have been one of his sequence of models.

18 posted on 10/26/2012 9:39:47 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

Colorado was the target of this video as well. Nicely done.


19 posted on 10/26/2012 9:45:10 AM PDT by CodeToad (Padme: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Tex-Con-Man
LorenC has disproven the Gilbert Photographs well enough, but he has not disproven the John Ray photographs, at least as far as I can tell. If Frank Davis was doing this stuff from the 50s onward, Stanley Ann may just happen to have been one of his sequence of models.

Naughty, naughty DL. You are using my images and my name without including me in the discussion.

Maybe we need to go way back to how this entire fiasco started? SOMEONE he says, sent three images from the free-vintage-porn website to a gentleman blogger in Brisbane, Australia, and he published the following comment:

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Naughty Obama Mamma

It's amazing what there is on the internet. A geneological researcher has emailed me with three pictures of Obama's mother in the nude. That would be of trivial interest except for the setting in which the picures were taken. They were clearly taken in a sophisticated mid-century apartment and my correspondent suggests that the apartment details could be used to identify the photographer. He feels that the photographer is the Communist "Frank" whom Obama mentions as his mentor. That Frank was so intimate with Obama's mother would support the contention that Frank was in fact Obama's father. Various bloggers have pointed out how similar Obama looks to "Frank" and the coverup of Obama's birth certificate is certainly very suspicious.

I will not post the pictures here as Google would undoubtedly take down this blog as soon as I did. Instead, I have posted the pictures here and here and here.

I give below part of the email from my correspondent:

By pure serendipity I found a photo of what I believe is Stanley Ann Dunham; two more I found through sheer plod. They are taken before Christmas by the decorations and unopened presents. Also a stereo and records that an expert could confirm as jazz records are in view.There is a distinctive grain to the wood floors. I do research including genealogical and had downloaded everything I could find. Not much. So when I saw the picture, I locked on the the ear lobes, chin, eyebrows. It is she. A nude photo,not distasteful, but posed, I believe, by a mature man who knows what he likes, including jazz and now we know young girls. One could ascertain the location of where the photos were taken.

And the shoes..not indigenous to Hawaii,but maybe not unsual for Helen Canfield Chicago socialite and Marshall's second wife. The photos are important in the sense that they explain the going to Chicago and the immediate acceptance by the hard left, if his father is Frank Marshall Davis, not just his mentor...

As a result this hoax has remained alive for THREE YEARS and now you are down to trying to keep it alive by telling us the models shared their earrings and necklaces...because you know it, you are STUCK. There was only ever ONE model. She wasn't Stanley Ann Dunham. And the author of that column never said she was...all he did was pass on something sent to him by an unidentified genealogist? who had no idea who the model was either.

SAME GIRL. SAME GIRL. SAME GIRL. YOU CAN'T MAKE TWO OUT OF ONE.

20 posted on 10/29/2012 5:42:20 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Naughty, naughty DL. You are using my images and my name without including me in the discussion.

And your subsequent message is why. You send a tedious reply.

Maybe we need to go way back to how this entire fiasco started? SOMEONE he says, sent three images from the free-vintage-porn website to a gentleman blogger in Brisbane, Australia, and he published the following comment:

And you keep repeating this pointless and irrelevant detail. I think you have mentioned that the Pictures came from "the free-vintage-porn" a half a dozen times, a point which I have never considered germane to the discussion, and it baffles me as to why you keep mentioning it, or why you regard it as significant.

As a result this hoax has remained alive for THREE YEARS and now you are down to trying to keep it alive by telling us the models shared their earrings and necklaces...

Which they did. And no, i'm not trying to keep it alive, i'm merely pointing out that it hasn't yet been killed. I have further pointed out what would kill it. Show where one of the John Ray pictures is in a magazine published prior to 1960. That would kill it.

because you know it, you are STUCK. There was only ever ONE model. She wasn't Stanley Ann Dunham. And the author of that column never said she was...

And here you quote the author of that column saying exactly that. " So when I saw the picture, I locked on the ear lobes, chin, eyebrows. It is she." Not that it matters, but I guess you missed that detail.

all he did was pass on something sent to him by an unidentified genealogist? who had no idea who the model was either.

Again, irrelevant. The picture resembles Ann Dunham exactly, and on top of that, it has the same crooked tooth. It may be a coincidence, but it is a pretty amazing coincidence.

SAME GIRL. SAME GIRL. SAME GIRL. YOU CAN'T MAKE TWO OUT OF ONE.

Maybe, but not completely proven. In any case, enough evidence has been put forth to make any other conclusion unlikely. This aspect of the Obama birth issue now appears to be a dead end.

21 posted on 10/30/2012 7:03:08 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Tex-Con-Man

I continue to refer to the website the original images came from, because the site is clearly identified on one of the images provided by the Brisbane blogger - and the serial number shows as YA - 438

There are only TWO FEMALES that are photgraphed in this series. Both women are shown in the same surroundings, complete with Christmas tree...

And for there to be TWO girls and ONE woman with a wide mouth and big hair, the Model and 'Stanley Ann Dunham' had to be sharing their underwear as well as their earrings and necklace.

Stanley Ann Dunham just wasn't there, and I remain curious who would have sent the images to the Brisbane blogger. A vintage-porn site seems to be an odd place for a genealogist to be looking for relatives....

I remain yours TEDIOUSLY.

22 posted on 10/30/2012 2:21:37 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“... In any case, enough evidence has been put forth to make any other conclusion unlikely. This aspect of the Obama birth issue now appears to be a dead end.”

It certainly has, so you can stop trying to cover for the hoax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVYofNIYPaA&feature=player_embedded

Images of the model are shown in this video to have been copyright in 1958.


23 posted on 10/30/2012 3:07:44 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks; DiogenesLamp

As someone who knows what it’s like to swim upstream around here, I understand Fred’s temptation to take an “I told ya’ so” victory lap...or two.

Sometimes, just disagreeing with what a small, but vocal group believes, is enough to turn a solid conservative into a laser painted target.


24 posted on 10/30/2012 3:50:15 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (Muppet season now open - no bag limit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man; little jeremiah
You're right...I was going to let it go, I have no interest in pushing anything that might help the fraud that is Zero, but as was pointed out to me by a freeper whose judgement I respect, a lie is a lie, doesn't matter who tells it.

Gilbert is a liar. Period. The identification of that model as Stanley Ann Dunham was a HOAX in 2008 and what now remains is the question; who sent the images to the blogger in Australia? That part of the story seems somewhat contrived imo.

Here's the link:

NAUGHTY OBAMA MAMA

Scroll down to Thursday, October 23, 2008

25 posted on 10/30/2012 4:20:33 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks; Tex-Con-Man; DiogenesLamp

The truth is the truth, whoever says it or finds it. Gold is gold, where ever it is found - in the trash, gutter, or vault. Serving truth instead of personal bias/belief/etc is the only way to live honestly.

And as a side note, anyone pushing a lie or lies should never be trusted on anything he says. Very often propagandists will stir a bit of truth into the stew of lies to trick people.


26 posted on 10/30/2012 5:05:31 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Hmm, focusing on the wood grain floor. Interesting.


27 posted on 10/30/2012 5:08:24 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Yes, it’s interesting...I was waiting for ‘someone’ to post the link to the Brisbane blogger’s website, but although the blogger was named several times in comments, it just never appeared.
Funny thing that...a crooked tooth and a timber floor is all it takes to turn zero into a natural-born citizen. Somehow I doubt if that was the original intention of the hoaxer, but how many millions of DVD’s did Gilbert distribute, and who paid for that?
He never looked like a philanthrophist to me.../s


28 posted on 10/30/2012 5:38:23 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

I think there is a dark underbelly to this hoax/mockumentary. I think it was likely planned.

Unique wood grain floor my ***!

It’s entirely ripped to shreds now. 1958, sharing underwear, etcetc.


29 posted on 10/30/2012 7:54:49 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
I continue to refer to the website the original images came from, because the site is clearly identified on one of the images provided by the Brisbane blogger - and the serial number shows as YA - 438

As you have continuously mentioned ad infinitum. What you haven't done is explain WHY THAT DETAIL IS WORTH MENTIONING!

There are only TWO FEMALES that are photgraphed in this series. Both women are shown in the same surroundings, complete with Christmas tree...

Yes, we are all aware of this.

And for there to be TWO girls and ONE woman with a wide mouth and big hair, the Model and 'Stanley Ann Dunham' had to be sharing their underwear as well as their earrings and necklace.

Perhaps you are just not getting this. I cannot see any of those pictures you keep posting. (Except for what you post of them.) The website you directed me to was a pay site, and I am not going to pay to look at those photos. I have never gotten a good look at the Gilbert photos, so your directing my attention to this or that detail isn't going to be very helpful unless I can actually see the detail to which you are directing my attention.

Stanley Ann Dunham just wasn't there, and I remain curious who would have sent the images to the Brisbane blogger. A vintage-porn site seems to be an odd place for a genealogist to be looking for relatives....

I do not understand your interest in this aspect. Who cares why a genealogist was looking at a Vintage-porn site? The obvious presumption might be that he just likes porn with a vintage kink to it. For whatever reason he happened to be perusing that site, he found a woman that looks a lot like Stanley Ann Dunham, and appears at first glance to be from the right time period.

I remain yours TEDIOUSLY.

I noticed. I personally see no further purpose to discussing this, the evidence presented so far makes it fairly unlikely that the woman is Ann Dunham, because it is unlikely that the same photo-shoot site and decor would remain from 1958-1960. Sure, families have Christmas every year, so it's possible, but it isn't very likely.

30 posted on 10/31/2012 4:58:50 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
It certainly has, so you can stop trying to cover for the hoax.

See, this is where we differ. You presume my motives are to "cover for the hoax" when in fact I am just pointing out that the details of it being a hoax are not completely nailed down. Also, the term "hoax" implies that someone is attempting a deceit. While this may be true in the case of Gilbert, I do not believe it is true regarding John Ray, and it is certainly not true regarding myself.

The evidence available until relatively recently convinced me that the woman was Ann Dunham. My main argument in this regard was that it is too much to ask of coincidence that a Woman who looks very much like her, and who has a crooked tooth in the same place in her mouth as Stanley Ann, and who happened to know an Amateur Photographer who likes taking pictures of naked women and who also has contacts in the porn publishing industry (remember his book?) and who was also a libertine, and who also happens to be a specialist in the area of Jazz music, etc. is just a whole lot of bits and pieces to overlook as coincidence.

As it should happen, they apparently were just multiple concurrent coincidences.

31 posted on 10/31/2012 5:10:43 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
As someone who knows what it’s like to swim upstream around here, I understand Fred’s temptation to take an “I told ya’ so” victory lap...or two.

She would be deserving of it had she performed the task of proving it herself. LorenC did all the work. Fred just had a belief, with no real evidence to base it on. I don't give people credit for being right just based on a hunch. I give credit for people being right based on evidence (and the analysis of) which demonstrates them to be right.

Sometimes, just disagreeing with what a small, but vocal group believes, is enough to turn a solid conservative into a laser painted target.

I am no stranger to being a lone target among a large disapproving group. It is my natural state of existence much of the time. What made yourself subject to so much suspicion and criticism is that nobody understood why in the world anyone would be motivated to work so hard to disprove bad rumors about Obama.

So now we have good evidence that Gilbert is intentionally lying. If asked about it, I will acknowledge it, but I don't feel any urgent need to go set people straight about the false rumors Gilbert is spreading. Hopefully in a few weeks it won't matter anyway.

32 posted on 10/31/2012 5:22:27 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
The truth is the truth, whoever says it or finds it. Gold is gold, where ever it is found - in the trash, gutter, or vault. Serving truth instead of personal bias/belief/etc is the only way to live honestly.

I agree. LorenC found the nugget of truth. He did good work, though why he felt so motivated to do so is still a mystery to me.

And as a side note, anyone pushing a lie or lies should never be trusted on anything he says. Very often propagandists will stir a bit of truth into the stew of lies to trick people.

And this is true also.

33 posted on 10/31/2012 5:26:57 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Tex-Con-Man; little jeremiah
The more you protest the more inclined I am to believe you just might be the geneaologist who sent the originals to Professor John Ray in Brisbane, Australia. You're not just perpetuating the hoax; more and more, you sound like you are protecting someone.

Stanley Ann Dunham is NOT in any of the images. The link to the video I posted yesterday clearly shows several of the images of the model were copyright in 1958.

34 posted on 10/31/2012 7:40:02 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Give it up. Your excuse that you can’t see the photographs doesn’t wash. I post links. Several images of the model came from Gilberts promotional video, many you can view on Google Images, and I DID NOT post any links to A PAY TO VIEW SITE.

LAME EXCUSES. I have posted hundreds of images on this subject over a long period. I have been attacked endlessly because I would not back down on what appears to be elementary. The model bears a superficial resemblance and that’s all.

I have no reason to agree with LorenC other than it was clear as a bell to me IN 2008 WHEN THE IMAGES FIRST APPEARED that the girl was NOT Stanley Ann Dunham.

You can waffle about teeth and floors and windows and about FMD and his camera until the cows come home, but all that waffling will never make the Model into Stanley Ann Dunham.


35 posted on 10/31/2012 8:15:27 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
... While this may be true in the case of Gilbert, I do not believe it is true regarding John Ray, and it is certainly not true regarding myself.

I NEVER, AT ANY TIME SUGGESTED THAT PROFESSOR JOHN RAY PERPETUATED A HOAX. Publishing what he was sent by an anonymous genealogist just wasn't really smart.

And the longer you go on protecting the original, anonymous source, the more you draw attention to yourself.

36 posted on 10/31/2012 8:27:02 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Why are so many people so easily fooled?

SOURCE

Around the same time the images appeared as the result of the links provided on the Brisbane blogger's website, another blogger in the US published the above photograph, and started the story that Stanley Ann Dunham was photographed in a bathing suit on the beach in Hawaii, in the summer when she would have been pregnant.

I tracked down the website which first showed the image, and asked them three times, please remove it.

IT'S A PHOTOGRAPH OF BARBARA BUSH!

37 posted on 10/31/2012 8:40:02 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Fred Nerks

Anyone with an open mind and not trying to find support for the belief that the nude model was SAD saw years ago that the model and SAD were different women.


38 posted on 10/31/2012 9:47:23 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
lj: And as a side note, anyone pushing a lie or lies should never be trusted on anything he says. Very often propagandists will stir a bit of truth into the stew of lies to trick people.

DL:And this is true also.

Of course, LorenC is also a liar and twister of facts. But in the case of dismantling the "SAD is the nude model and FMD took the photos" he provides undeniable evidence. Gilbert, OTOH, provides fake "evidence" that he knew was false.

39 posted on 10/31/2012 9:52:35 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
People are easily fooled because they want to believe something, so their mind tells them "yes, it is trooooo!". And they believe their mind instead of objective reality. As I often say, a thirst for truth is the most valuable treasure in the world, and no one can take it away from you. People cling to every imaginable kind of illusion, trickery, mirage and outright B.S. just because it props up their (current) set of beliefs. Beliefs are useless. Children believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and cartoons...

Modern relativism/leftism and all that stuff has even more ruined so many peoples' ability to tell truth from fiction. They have too much faith in their minds. The job of the mind is to "wander over varied subject matter" accepting what it likes and rejecting what it doesn't like. But tomorrow it will "like" and "dislike" different things...that's the nature of the flickering mind. People identify with the mind, and that is a huge, huge mistake. It's a tool, that's all. It's not conscious. It appeaars conscious just because of the reflected light of the soul, which is the source of consciousness.

That's why it's important to control the mind, to use discernment about what is "fed" into the mind, to put some reins on the mind and not listen to everything that pops up in it, etc. Riding the hobby horse of the mind is not a good plan.

40 posted on 10/31/2012 10:02:22 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
...What made yourself subject to so much suspicion and criticism is that nobody understood why in the world anyone would be motivated to work so hard to disprove bad rumors about Obama.

So many freepers labelled me a subversive and a traitor because the story wasn't holding together, and rather than look at the evidence, it was easier to call me names. And meanwhile I'm thinking, what a bunch of fools, all they have achieved is to make it seem that he's a natural born citizen after all, with two citizen parents.

I can handle being lied to but I see no reason for freepers to lie to each other. Certainly not to give zero a plan B after the Kenyan-student-father-fiasco was being exposed.

Below you will find the link to the Gilbert promotional video from which many of the images I used in the composites were taken, I have posted it numerous times:

VIDEO LINK

And all we achieved in the interval was to waste time that could have been better spent researching where he really came from and when.

I don't agree that soon it won't matter any more. You don't really think he'll go quietly, do you?

41 posted on 10/31/2012 11:26:32 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I’m thinking very seriously about what you wrote. Herd mentality must have something to do with it. Being unable to engage in independant thought.
Wishful thinking?

It’s a pity. The entire episode resulted in nothing. Those who will vote for him don’t care who FMD was, and all the video has achieved is to cement Stanley Ann Dunham into people’s minds as his mother.

And the only evidence for THAT is a forgery.


42 posted on 10/31/2012 11:38:22 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
The more you protest the more inclined I am to believe you just might be the geneaologist who sent the originals to Professor John Ray in Brisbane, Australia. You're not just perpetuating the hoax; more and more, you sound like you are protecting someone.

Fine Fred. I *AM* the Geneaologist who sent the originals to Professor John Ray in Brisbane, Australia. I like surfing pron, especially the old soft-core black and white stuff. You ferreted me out, and now I am so very ashamed of my role in this charade. It's also very important part of my punishment that you point out that these pictures (Which I sent to Professor John Ray in Brisbane, Australia)came from a website called "Vintage Porn."

Stanley Ann Dunham is NOT in any of the images. The link to the video I posted yesterday clearly shows several of the images of the model were copyright in 1958.

It shows that a couple of the pictures Gilbert found was in a Exotique magazine which was published in 1958. I haven't seen any of the pictures (Which I sent to Professor John Ray in Brisbane, Australia) found in any magazine so far.

43 posted on 11/01/2012 7:37:44 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Give it up. Your excuse that you can’t see the photographs doesn’t wash. I post links. Several images of the model came from Gilberts promotional video, many you can view on Google Images, and I DID NOT post any links to A PAY TO VIEW SITE.

If I prove you wrong on this will you shut up about it? (Somehow I doubt it. It will probably just encourage you to write even more) Here is the link to the message you sent me that contains the link to the pay site.

And here is the link to the pay site you sent me.

http://a.gogousenet.com/0zfcihgk/set/mukogvqptgqBlufpppkiqqnrxDbfkunxxherjbyexuortpjy/page-1-date-50.html

The only photos I can see on that pay site are these teeny tiny thumbnails that are too small to make out any detail.

LAME EXCUSES. I have posted hundreds of images on this subject over a long period.

And many of them irrelevant and/or of dubious utility. You have a tendency to juxtapose images with no discernible connection or seeming purpose.

I have been attacked endlessly because I would not back down on what appears to be elementary. The model bears a superficial resemblance and that’s all.

If by superficial you mean absolute dead on ringer right down to the same crooked tooth, then yeah, she bears a "superficial resemblance."

I have no reason to agree with LorenC other than it was clear as a bell to me IN 2008 WHEN THE IMAGES FIRST APPEARED that the girl was NOT Stanley Ann Dunham.

To be fair, you were/are also certain that Stanley Ann Dunham is NOT the mother of Barack Obama, so not needing evidence to believe one thing or another is certainly a side benefit of your stroll through crazy land. My recollection is that you KNEW the woman wasn't Stanley Ann Dunham because it didn't fit your theory, not because you had any good reason to believe such a thing.

You can waffle about teeth and floors and windows and about FMD and his camera until the cows come home, but all that waffling will never make the Model into Stanley Ann Dunham.

What you call "waffling" is simply pointing out that the evidence available up till now was far more supportive of the woman being Stanley Ann Dunham, than it was against it. Too many coincidences piled on top of too many other coincidences. You have the advantage of not needing any evidence to convince yourself about whatever you want to believe. You were against it before you had any proof.

I changed my mind based on new evidence. You have never waffled in your utter certainty.

44 posted on 11/01/2012 8:03:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Give it up. Your excuse that you can’t see the photographs doesn’t wash. I post links. Several images of the model came from Gilberts promotional video, many you can view on Google Images, and I DID NOT post any links to A PAY TO VIEW SITE.

If I prove you wrong on this will you shut up about it? (Somehow I doubt it. It will probably just encourage you to write even more) Here is the link to the message you sent me that contains the link to the pay site.

And here is the link to the pay site you sent me.

http://a.gogousenet.com/0zfcihgk/set/mukogvqptgqBlufpppkiqqnrxDbfkunxxherjbyexuortpjy/page-1-date-50.html

The only photos I can see on that pay site are these teeny tiny thumbnails that are too small to make out any detail.

LAME EXCUSES. I have posted hundreds of images on this subject over a long period.

And many of them irrelevant and/or of dubious utility. You have a tendency to juxtapose images with no discernible connection or seeming purpose.

I have been attacked endlessly because I would not back down on what appears to be elementary. The model bears a superficial resemblance and that’s all.

If by superficial you mean absolute dead on ringer right down to the same crooked tooth, then yeah, she bears a "superficial resemblance."

I have no reason to agree with LorenC other than it was clear as a bell to me IN 2008 WHEN THE IMAGES FIRST APPEARED that the girl was NOT Stanley Ann Dunham.

To be fair, you were/are also certain that Stanley Ann Dunham is NOT the mother of Barack Obama, so not needing evidence to believe one thing or another is certainly a side benefit of your stroll through crazy land. My recollection is that you KNEW the woman wasn't Stanley Ann Dunham because it didn't fit your theory, not because you had any good reason to believe such a thing.

You can waffle about teeth and floors and windows and about FMD and his camera until the cows come home, but all that waffling will never make the Model into Stanley Ann Dunham.

What you call "waffling" is simply pointing out that the evidence available up till now was far more supportive of the woman being Stanley Ann Dunham, than it was against it. Too many coincidences piled on top of too many other coincidences. You have the advantage of not needing any evidence to convince yourself about whatever you want to believe. You were against it before you had any proof.

I changed my mind based on new evidence. You have never waffled in your utter certainty.

45 posted on 11/01/2012 8:03:42 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
I NEVER, AT ANY TIME SUGGESTED THAT PROFESSOR JOHN RAY PERPETUATED A HOAX. Publishing what he was sent by an anonymous genealogist just wasn't really smart.

You keep using the word "Hoax". The only person "Hoaxing" around here appears to be Gilbert. If you don't mean to paint with a broad brush, then make sure you point out specifically who is perpetrating a "hoax."

As far as the anonymous genealogist not being smart, I couldn't tell anything about their intelligence based on the fact that they noted a very strong resemblance between Stanley Ann Dunham and the woman in those photographs.

And the longer you go on protecting the original, anonymous source, the more you draw attention to yourself.

And why should I care if I do? You've already said you think i'm the anonymous genealogist, and I am perfectly content to let you believe this if you wish. It will dovetail nicely with some of the other stuff you believe which is nonsense.

H3ll, i'm the Photographer! Hey folks! Just to let you know, *I* took those Photographs back in 1958! I looked all over the planet to find an identical twin of Stanley Ann Dunham, just so I could take photographs of her to stir this controversy in 2008-2012! And then I went to the Daley Plaza in 1963, and I was the second gunman on the grassy knoll! See, here's a picture of me.

I was just following instructions given to me by my masters in the New World Order. The plan to take over all the governments was supposed to be hush hush, but now I've gone and let it all out of the bag! Hopefully they will send a black helicopter to rescue me now that my cover is blown.

46 posted on 11/01/2012 8:26:05 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
IT'S A PHOTOGRAPH OF BARBARA BUSH!

Yeah, I know. Never thought it was Stanley Ann, and don't understand how anyone else could have thought so.

47 posted on 11/01/2012 8:28:12 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Anyone with an open mind and not trying to find support for the belief that the nude model was SAD saw years ago that the model and SAD were different women.

A lot of people thought they were the same woman. It is not obvious at all that they are two different women. Snopes took the claim seriously enough that they tried to lie and claim the woman was Marcy Moore. After Gilbert made his initial claims, even Snopes had to pull their article on the topic.

48 posted on 11/01/2012 8:31:43 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Of course, LorenC is also a liar and twister of facts. But in the case of dismantling the "SAD is the nude model and FMD took the photos" he provides undeniable evidence. Gilbert, OTOH, provides fake "evidence" that he knew was false.

Yes, I agree. LorenC might be an Obama agent, (or not, but who can tell from his behavior?) but Gilbert knowingly and intentionally lied about the facts he had uncovered, ostensibly for the purpose of promoting his movie. His reason for lying was either to gain fame or profit, or perhaps even to help defeat Obama, but his ends do not justify his means.

Gilbert should be denounced roundly for his intentional deceit. (but I for one am going to wait till after the election to make any noise about it.)

49 posted on 11/01/2012 8:37:27 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
I don't agree that soon it won't matter any more. You don't really think he'll go quietly, do you?

I am actually hoping he will put up a nasty fight. I personally believe the man belongs in prison, and it will satisfy my sense of justice if he ends up there, especially if he resists going quietly.

I suspect there are a large number of his security entourage that would be all to happy to be tasked with removing him. I should not at all be surprised to discover he ends up stumbling down some stairs while being escorted.

This man is the worst scum the United States has ever seen in such a position of power. I want to see him, and his political associates all serving time in prison.

50 posted on 11/01/2012 8:42:41 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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