Obama, Who's Your Daddy?

American Thinker ^ | October 7, 1012 | J.T. Hatter

[Kukai]

Why are people still talking about the birther issue? Congress and the Supreme Court have said they're not looking into it. But this issue clearly still has legs.

According to Adam Berinsky, a professor of political science at MIT, the birther issue never really went away. He's been conducting polls on the birthplace issue, which he compiled in an article called "The Birthers are (Still) Back." To wit, a lot of Americans continue to have doubts about Obama.

For the last four years, Barack Obama has been plagued by rumors that he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and, as a result, is not eligible to serve as president. These rumors continue to show surprising resilience.

But what Berlinsky did in his polling was what the progressive defenders of the faith have always done: confused the birthplace question with other questions regarding Obama's eligibility to hold office. To many, the issue isn't where he was born. The question is, who is his father? And is Obama a natural born citizen, since his father was not a U.S. citizen?

Barack Hussein Obama has spent about two million dollars to keep the American people from taking a peek at his original long-form birth certificate. Nobody spends that kind of money unless there's something really damning he wants to hide.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks for your response. I will continue to keep an open mind on this issue. The photograph he is using to compare teeth has better detail than any of the photographs I have seen before.

It is not as much information as I had hoped to see, but it is something new.

[JT Hatter]

I’m with you, DiogenesLamp, and that’s why I reserve my skepticism, as indicated in my American Thinker article. The evidence is not conclusive. Compelling but not conclusive.

[little jeremiah]

If you remove SAD from the picture, it makes sense. All described on the “Auntie” thread.

WIll post link if anyone wants. Trying to stuff SAD into “mama” role creates puzzles and problems and headaches and nothing fits.

Neither purported parent is a parent.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"I mean you no disrespect in my comments."

I know you don't LJ. You've always been, and still are one of my favorite commenters on the eligibility threads, even though we aren't (yet) in accordance on the likely true nature of the "Obama" deception.

We both know that the narrative presented is bs. We'll just have to keep analyzing data as it becomes available until the truth finally outs, my FRiend. :)

[PA-RIVER]

My wish for justice is a resignation and revocation of all pensions and other benefits.

We the people are obligated to know who it is that governs us. To have this man in office mocking any attempt to discover who he is has been an insult to every American.

I am hoping that documentation from Indonesia hits the fan.

[Fred Nerks]

Concentrate on the crooked tooth folks, don't take any notice that for the model to be Stanley Ann Dunham she would need major surgery to her chin, nose, eyes and ears...

And another thing - how does one explain that the 'Ann Dunham' Gilbert identifies in his video isn't the same woman as the tinted image wearing the same earrings and necklace, sitting on the same couch in the same room at Christmas?

But she's TOO OLD to be the same woman, they tell me. The woman in the black and white photograph cannot be the same as the woman in the tinted photograph....and on and on it goes, one item of misinformation after another.

JUST CONCENTRATE ON THE TOOTH!

The model does look to be too old to be Stanley Ann Dunham who had recently graduated from high school, according to the image supposedly taken from the Class of 1960 Yearbook. Might that be because they are two totally different people?

BUT KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE TEETH!

[Sirius Lee]

It’s not just the differences in the chin, but the nose is completely different (left nostril higher than the right) and eyebrows, earlobes...

[Fred Nerks]

Here’s the link to the Youtube video in which Gilbert clearly identifies both the black and white images and the tinted images as being ANN DUNHAM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMUlWbO1rhk

He obviously quite deliberately hasn’t named her by her full, real name, which is STANLEY ANN DUNHAM. But it’s the same woman none the-less...and she’s NOT Stanley Ann Dunham.

[DiogenesLamp]

It's funny, but your intentions of attracting our attention to the chin makes me notice that the chin of the original three pictures matches that of known pictures of Stanley Ann Dunham quite well.

In the picture I post which highlights her tooth, she does indeed appear to have a very long chin.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Fred Nerks]

UNFORTUNATELY IT'S NOT QUITE LONG ENOUGH:

But we've been through that before, haven't we?

KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE TOOTH!

[DiogenesLamp]

You are not getting what I am saying. You keep going back to those same pictures, but you are not using the pictures that I select. (Which seems to be a consistency you have.)

In the pictures I selected, both girls appear to have long chins. As near as I can judge, they are the same length. Compare their chins.

Just in case you missed it the first six times I've said it, I am suggesting that the three original pictures (one of which is above.) might be Stanley Ann, but the other pictures discovered by Gilbert are not.

Why don't you compare the visible length of chins from the original (John Ray) three pictures with the Gilbert pictures? Or Why don't you resize and compare the jaw length of the John Ray picture above, with the Stanley Ann picture above?

[DiogenesLamp]

As a matter of fact, you've almost done that here. Look at these two women.

Look how long is the chin of the woman in the John Ray photograph. Do they look like they have the same chin length to you? They certainly look like they have different chin lengths to me.

[Fred Nerks]

You are not getting what I am saying. You keep going back to those same pictures, but you are not using the pictures that I select. (Which seems to be a consistency you have.)

I use the same images because to make the comparisons, the faces have to be full-front-on, both of them. And yes, I am consistent for that reason, just as you are, you cannot make a comment without the same belittling tone which achieves nothing.

In the pictures I selected, both girls appear to have long chins. As near as I can judge, they are the same length. Compare their chins.

Of course they both have long chins. That's one of the attributes that persuaded who-ever it was that lifted them from the free-vintage-porn com website to falsely attribute them to Stanley Ann Dunham, with nothing more to go on than a superficial resemblance. If the originals on the site (now removed) didn't have a long chin, the entire fiasco would never have been started.

Just in case you missed it the first six times I've said it, I am suggesting that the three original pictures (one of which is above.) might be Stanley Ann, but the other pictures discovered by Gilbert are not.

They are however, the same girl, photographed in the same place on the same day and in several images in both black and white and tinted, wearing either the same shoes, underwear or earrings and/or necklace...you obviously haven't studied the images in detail.

Why don't you compare the visible length of chins from the original (John Ray) three pictures with the Gilbert pictures? Or Why don't you resize and compare the jaw length of the John Ray picture above, with the Stanley Ann picture above?

Why don't you? There's something most peculiar about your refusal to accept that there are both black and white AND TINTED images of the same model.

[Fred Nerks]

Your problem seems to be that you can only focus on one item at a time. First it was the tooth, now it’s the chin.
Soon I expect you will be telling me that Frank Marshall Davis photographed both girls on the same day in the same room and they both wore the same necklace and earrings. You really need to get off your high horse and take the time to STUDY the images.
WANTING to see something isn’t enough. Attacking the messenger is always counter-productive.
Piling one lie upon another like Gilbert has done proves nothing. The film may persuade a few people to change their vote, but that still doesn’t make Frank Marshall Davis the father of anyone other than his own five children.

[Fred Nerks]

...I've spent a long time thinking those John Ray photos were of Stanley Ann...

I noticed that. And as the images were supposedly sent to Mr Ray anonymously, without any identification, by someone who described themselves as a genealogist, I'm beginning to wonder just who that might have been.

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.imagesaving.com/images/obamasmom.png

Here’s a link to three more black and white images (from Gilbert) that also show the same girl who isn’t Stanley Ann Dunham.

And here’s a link to a page full of images of a model who also has a superficial resemblance to S.A.D. but isn’t her, although some of them are quite clearly the same girl as the original three from ‘free-vintage-porn.com’

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

PS. I don’t have any sophisticated photo manipulation equipment, I only use an image savings site - but I do have an eye for detail.

[Fred Nerks]

... You tell me that the model has a long chin (Like Stanley Ann) but you post pictures of Stanley Ann next to one of the Gilbert Photos in which the girl DOES NOT have a long chin...

Problem is, there are no photographs of Stanley Ann Dunham.

[DiogenesLamp]

Apparently my post was removed by the moderator. I wonder why?

I noticed that. And as the images were supposedly sent to Mr Ray anonymously, without any identification, by someone who described themselves as a genealogist, I'm beginning to wonder just who that might have been.

I don't know why the identity of that genealogist would have any bearing on the discussion. Have you read what John Ray writes? He is very conservative in his writing, and I have no reason to distrust his word or his judgement.