Main Menu

Is Joel Gilbert’s film “Dreams from My Real Father” child pornography?

It what might be the best piece of investigative reporting encountered in my entire career as Dr. Conspiracy, Loren Collins at the Barackryphal blog has proven beyond question that the so-called nude photos of Obama’s mother where not photos of Ann Dunham taken by Frank Marshall Davis in 1960 as claimed by Joel Gilbert in his film Dreams from My Real Father, but date back to 1958 when they appeared in a porno-fetish magazine. In 1958, Obama’s mother was only 15 and hadn’t yet moved to Hawaii.

If Gilbert is right that these photos are of Ann Dunham, then he is guilty of the sexual exploitation of minors in his film, and so is anyone who has a copy of his film in their possession!

, , , ,

19 Responses to Is Joel Gilbert’s film “Dreams from My Real Father” child pornography?

  1. avatar
    ZixiOfIx October 2, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

    So, anyone who claims that this is Ann Dunham is now on notice that their claims go hand in hand with being in possession of/publishing/disseminating child p*rn*graphy.

    Unless it isn’t Ann Dunham. In which case, they’re “just” smearing a dead woman who can’t defend herself.

    This would be funny if there were anything humorous about either subject.

    How very low the birthers stoop.

  2. avatar
    AlCum October 2, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    Super job. I know Peter Boyles. Anything for ratings. Peter had Gilbert on just the other day, praising his work and ridiculing callers who didn’t believe the woman was Stanley Ann Dunham. He will never admit he is wrong. He’d lose listeners for his carpet cleaning ads.

  3. avatar
    Paul October 2, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    Yeah, I’ve been following this series since I saw it linked on your page. It’s a really brilliant deflation of the film.

  4. avatar
    misha marinsky October 3, 2012 at 12:10 am #

    Mitt and the dog on the roof. Mike Huckabee caught a stray dog, hung it, slit its throat and stoned it to death.

    Google “mormon child abuse.” Now pictures that are used to smear a dead woman, and the President’s family. I would like to point out those pictures have appeared in the Mandarin Chinese World Journal. My wife hit the roof. http://www.worldjournal.com/

    It seems Republicans have a real problem with ethics, animal abuse and child abuse, which doesn’t surprise me. Take Gingrich and Bob Livingston, for example. Remember, Livingston resigned after an affair with an underage female page, while preaching family values.

    I’ll repeat for emphasis: I was sitting in an Arlington, VA hotel lobby, and had a terrible asthma episode. A man walked up to me and said “Asthma?” I nodded “yes.” “Are you a Christian?” I nodded “no.” He said, “That’s why you have asthma. If you were a Christian, Jesus would take your asthma away.”

    They’re all a bunch of dolls.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 3, 2012 at 2:01 am #

    I have renamed Gilbert’s movie: “Wet Dreams from My Imagination.”

  6. avatar
    Keith October 3, 2012 at 3:26 am #

    Great job by Loren.

    I haven’t read his paper yet, but when I do I’ll be looking for an answer to just one question.

    How the heck did he find the original publication with the photos? Maintains a big collection, does he? 😎

  7. avatar
    Keith October 3, 2012 at 3:52 am #

    Keith: How the heck did he find the original publication with the photos? Maintains a big collection, does he? 😎

    OK, I’ve read his paper(s). They are superb. And he locates the original publication because Gilbert points him in the right direction (even though he tries to hide it).

    Slam dunk.

  8. avatar
    Zixi of Ix October 3, 2012 at 5:05 am #

    AlCum:
    Super job. I know Peter Boyles. Anything for ratings. Peter had Gilbert on just the other day, praising his work and ridiculing callers who didn’t believe the woman was Stanley Ann Dunham. He will never admit he is wrong. He’d lose listeners for his carpet cleaning ads.

    Everyone in the media has a boss.

    Everyone in the media has sponsors.

    I wonder if his boss or sponsors know that he’s either promoting a big huge liar who is using pornography to make his case (best case), or someone who is distributing photos of a sexually exploited child?

    Either way, ugly ugly stuff.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 3, 2012 at 8:41 am #

    I used to be a volunteer that rated web sites for age-appropriate content, ratings that were used by parental control software. We had super strict rules (in line with the US Code) for dealing with child pornography. I never did encounter any actual child pornography, but was assigned one page where the models were made up to look young, and I deleted my cache and forwarded the URL to law enforcement.

    The point is that a young model can be made to appear older and vice versa. Certainly those photos that Loren excerpted look like an adult woman, but I wouldn’t stake my life on her not being 15. It’s certainly not worth the risk of going to jail for 5-15 and being labeled a sex criminal for life.

    If I had a copy of Gilbert’s film (which I don’t) I would destroy it, or put it in a sealed envelope and hand it over to the FBI.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 3, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    I had considered spending a little time trying to debunk the Gilbert photos myself, only with a different approach. There are certain facial characteristics that can be used to discriminate between people, such as the ratio of the distance between the eyes to the distance between something else.

    I was getting ready to do some research then Loren mercifully made it unnecessary.

  11. avatar
    ASK Esq October 3, 2012 at 9:33 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: There are certain facial characteristics that can be used to discriminate between people, such as the ratio of the distance between the eyes to the distance between something else.

    There is actually a Freeper who did this (Shocking, I know, but there are some Freepers who refuse to stoop so low as to agree with Gilbert). He lined up the alleged Ann photos with known photos of her, and showed that the chin and other facial features simply did not line up, proving that they are not the same person. naturally, other inmates over there screamed at him for doing so.

  12. avatar
    J.D. Reed October 3, 2012 at 10:42 am #

    misha marinsky: Mitt and the dog on the roof. Mike Huckabee caught a stray dog, hung it, slit its throat and stoned it to death.
    Uh, Misha, wasn’t it Huckabee’s son who committed the atrocity on the dog?

  13. avatar
    misha marinsky October 3, 2012 at 10:50 am #

    J.D. Reed: Uh, Misha, wasn’t it Huckabee’s son who committed the atrocity on the dog?

    It was David Huckabee. I’ve been making a lot of these goofs since the stroke.

    Thanks for catching it:

    http://crooksandliars.com/2007/12/16/huckabee-squashed-charges-against-his-son-for-stoning-hanging-dog

  14. avatar
    Keith October 3, 2012 at 10:50 am #

    J.D. Reed:

    That’s what he said… Huckabee.

  15. avatar
    Zixi of Ix October 3, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

    ASK Esq: There is actually a Freeper who did this (Shocking, I know, but there are some Freepers who refuse to stoop so low as to agree with Gilbert). He lined up the alleged Ann photos with known photos of her, and showed that the chin and other facial features simply did not line up, proving that they are not the same person. naturally, other inmates over there screamed at him for doing so.

    Sites and stations which traffic in Birtherism suddenly have a big important choice to make.

    After they are made aware of the fact that these images were published in 1958, when (Ann Dunham was 15), site/station owners will have to admit that they are publishing and republishing lies – not innuendo – but actual lies – in hopes of smearing a dead woman for political gain.

    In other words, they’d have to claim that these photos can’t be of Ann Dunham, but they’re going to say they are, and publish them anyway.

    (or)

    They are going to acknowledge that they have published photographs of what they believe to be an child engaged in sexually explicit behaviour, for which there is no legal safe harbor (nor should there ever be), for political gain.

    As far as I can tell, there is no third option. It’ll be interesting to see what site/station owners do.

    In the meantime, politicians, gadflies, and assorted hangers-on who traffic in these rumors should be informed of this development.

    See if they’ll still want to join hands and skip down the path with the birthers now.

  16. avatar
    Judge Mental October 3, 2012 at 5:19 pm #

    ASK Esq: There is actually a Freeper who did this (Shocking, I know, but there are some Freepers who refuse to stoop so low as to agree with Gilbert). He lined up the alleged Ann photos with known photos of her, and showed that the chin and other facial features simply did not line up, proving that they are not the same person. naturally, other inmates over there screamed at him for doing so.

    I wouldn’t be too profuse with any tolerance or admiration of that particular freeper. His full position is that although it isn’t Obama’s mother he nevertheless fully supports the continued publication of anything at all which pretends they are photos of Obama’s mother, purely for what I would describe as the ‘taint value’.

    He suggests that Gilbert increase distribution of the dvd and expresses a wiilingness to contribute financially.

  17. avatar
    RuhRoh October 4, 2012 at 10:57 am #

    Dave Weigel may have found one of the people funding the mailing of DVDs of Gilbert’s movie. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/02/read_the_pitch_that_a_businessman_is_using_to_promote_the_new_obama_conspiracy_film.html

  18. avatar
    misha marinsky October 4, 2012 at 11:42 am #

    Where did Mitt Romney bury the girl he strangled in 1987?

  19. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny October 4, 2012 at 1:24 pm #

    And then there is the picture which is supposed to be from the welcoming celebration of Obama’s father in 1959. Loren says it is from Obama (sr)’s graduation day a few years later.

    Anyone who knows something about fashion and how slowly American ladies took to short skirts and dresses, particularly on formal occasions, knows that picture could not possibly have been taken in 1959.