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.

[Fred Nerks]

...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?

[Fred Nerks]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.)

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[Fred Nerks]

CLICK THE LINK. IT IS NOT A PAY TO VIEW SITE

And if the images are too small for your poor eyes, why don't you download them (anyone of the dozen on that page) into an image savings account and ENLARGE THEM? You disparage the images I use, you say you can't find them, you can't see them, and then you say they are irrelevant and/or of dubious utility which means I could be here until Christmas - playing with words like they were ping-pong balls. You are a very slippery piece of work and I'm tired of you. You insinuate I was suggesting the genealogist wasn't smart. I WROTE THE PROFESSOR WASN'T SMART. He had no identification to go on. And every time you mentioned the Professor and his name and website, you neglected to include a link. Why?

Your replies are littered with so many strawmen we could be here for a year playing with words like they were ping-pong balls. I'm sick of it. You are simply refusing to see the evidence I place before your eyes. It's an old trick. I can handle that. But you made it personal.

YOU WRITE: You have a tendency to juxtapose images with no discernible connection or seeming purpose.

That's in your opinion.You are not the only one who reads these threads on FR. And the statement is in itself, INSULTING.

[Fred Nerks]

CORRECTION:

It’s only ‘a pay to view site’ if you want to BUY an enlarged image to download. There are more than a dozen images on that page of the Model.

[Fred Nerks]

...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.

I couldn't agree more.