Anti-Obama DVD floods local mailboxes

Orlando Sentinel ^ | 10-18-2012 | Jim Stratton

[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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[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

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.

[Fred Nerks]

“... 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.

[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.

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

[Fred Nerks]

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

[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.

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.

[little jeremiah]

Hmm, focusing on the wood grain floor. Interesting.

[Fred Nerks]

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

[little jeremiah]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[Fred Nerks]

... 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.

[Fred Nerks]

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!

[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.

[little jeremiah]

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.

[little jeremiah]

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.