Main Menu

New video debunks Gilbert’s Dreams movie

My hat’s off to Loren Collins, who has taken on Joel Gilbert and his movie Dreams from My Real Father movie, thrown them to the mat and applied an unbreakable submission hold. Loren has done superb research and completed the job with a well-made video. You don’t hear me say this often, but this needs to go viral.

Since this article was written, the original video was removed by YouTube for claims of copyright infringement (see discussion below the video) and what appears following is a new version.

Between the time I watched the video and I hit the Publish button, the original video was made unavailable on YouTube with the note: “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Highway 61 Entertainment.”

Highway 61 entertainment is the production company that made Dreams from My Real Father, a brief 25-second excerpt from which appears in Loren’s video. Loren would know better than I, but I believe this is fair use and no copyright infringement exists; nevertheless, the way the law works, it is very easy to get material removed from the Internet, at least in the short term, with a copyright violation claim.

, , ,

111 Responses to New video debunks Gilbert’s Dreams movie

  1. avatar
    Craig October 15, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    They’re gonna get screwed on that; Loren is a lawyer, and a good one.

  2. avatar
    donna October 15, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

    speaking of a video (off topic but timely)

    Let FDR Warn You

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=24225

    “Let me warn you, and let me warn the nation, against the smooth evasion that says ‘Of course we believe these things. We believe in social security. We believe in work for the unemployed. We believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die.

    ‘We believe in all these things. But we do not like the way that the present administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them, we will do more of them, we will do them better and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything'”

  3. avatar
    JPotter October 15, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

    Well, now, it could certainly be hosted elsewhere….. ;)

  4. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 15, 2012 at 11:34 pm #

    JPotter:
    Well, now, it could certainly be hosted elsewhere…..

    And a transcript with just a synopsis of the clip from Dreams would eliminate any objections.

  5. avatar
    Keith October 15, 2012 at 11:41 pm #

    donna: speaking of a video (off topic but timely)

    And also timely…

    FDR: Government by Organized Money is just as dangerous as Government by Organized Mob

  6. avatar
    donna October 15, 2012 at 11:56 pm #

    Keith:

    grazie mille – i will save that one too

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 16, 2012 at 12:06 am #

    Loren may post an abbreviated version of the video while waiting for the original to be restored.

    CarlOrcas: And a transcript with just a synopsis of the clip from Dreams would eliminate any objections.

  8. avatar
    Loren October 16, 2012 at 12:27 am #

    The new version is up:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XqZ8bzfbpk

  9. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 16, 2012 at 1:43 am #

    Loren: The new version is up:

    Just watched it. Great job. It is devastating…..for Gilbert.

    Do you have any idea if the business files of the magazine may still exist? How about an editor that may be alive? I ask because it appears the women are professional models and even back then they would have maintained files to document the ages of models.

    Someone knows who that woman is.

  10. avatar
    foreigner October 16, 2012 at 4:13 am #

    can someone include a link to this in wikipedia ?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreams_from_My_Real_Father
    also, just add
    “The documentary alleges that Barack”
    to your webpage, so people who are looking for a review will find it.
    What I would do : first search wikipedia and then type the first sentence of
    the wikipedia article into a searchengine.
    Maybe some additional keywords like “review,debunked,fake,Dunham,Exotique,Gilbert,…”
    Send a copy to Alex Jones !

  11. avatar
    foreigner October 16, 2012 at 4:27 am #

    I would also show a chart, when Exotique was published and mark the 2 volumes with the photos.
    And with a thick bar, of when Obama was born.
    People will realize it better that way and remember it.
    If the latest issue was indeed in 1958, then it was increadibly silly by Gilbert to show
    the covers at all. No matter what’s in it.
    Hmm, wait, maybe he only used it to show the location, the couch and missed the pictures
    which he found reprinted in later magazines ?
    Or weren’t some of the pictures shown earlier and Gilbert only added some more ?
    Are these 2 among the Gilbert-added pictures ?

  12. avatar
    foreigner October 16, 2012 at 5:01 am #

    I mean, a thick bar when Dunham moved to Hawaii
    (ok, and a bar when she first met Obama and a bar when she legally
    became full age and a bar when Hawaii became a state

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 16, 2012 at 8:43 am #

    I looked at the Wikipedia article. There is a long section at the end (as of this moment) that discusses Collins’ debunking of the film and links to his blog.

    Loren Collins has examined the photographs Gildert claims are of Ann Dunham and has found that they were originally published in specialty fetish magazines such as Exotique in 1958. He points out that it would make it impossible for them to be of Frank Marshal Davis photographing Ann Dunham, as she did not move to Hawaii until 1960. Also, Ann Dunham was 15 in 1958 and the woman is clearly not that young, and if she was that young then showing these photos would be displaying photographs of a Minor. In addition, Collins has spoken to the man who now owns Frank Marshal Davis’s house and has ascertained that the room that Gilbert alleges the photos were taken does not resemble the room the photos were taken, a fact that Gillbert would have been aware of as he visited the home under false pretenses. The room in the photo along with the furnishings also appeared in several other photos in Exotique in 1958. He also points out that the outfit and earrings worn by the model that Gilbert alleges was Ann Dunhan also appear in several other photos in Exotique in 1958. Loren therefore concludes that the woman in the photo cannot be of Ann Dunham and the photos were not taken in Hawaii, as Gilbert alleges

    I personally think that this paragraph is what the Wikipedia calls “original research” and will probably be deleted.

    What I would suggest is a replacement of that longish paragraph with a sentence: “Photographs that the film claims were of Dunham actually appeared in early 1958 in the magazine Exotique, before the Dunham family moved to Hawaii where Davis lived.” Footnote that by a book reference to the Exotique reprints.

    foreigner: can someone include a link to this in wikipedia ?

  14. avatar
    foreigner October 16, 2012 at 9:01 am #

    yes, 8 times edited today says “history”.
    Just a note that there are pictures from the model
    too early for Dunham and a link should be fine.
    Checking wikipedia is the most natural thing to do
    when you get such a DVD

  15. avatar
    The Magic M October 16, 2012 at 9:50 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy [quoting Wikipedia]: if she was that young then showing these photos would be displaying photographs of a Minor

    In the midst of the blog post they’re trying to make
    In the midst of all conspiracy
    They will finally grasp the BC isn’t fake
    For Kim Ark was no Minor, you see?

    (with apologies to Lewis Carroll)

  16. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater October 16, 2012 at 10:27 am #

    Doc they already removed the addition the history reads something about Loren being an unreliable source.

  17. avatar
    foreigner October 16, 2012 at 11:01 am #

    this is like judging the prove of a math theorem by the “reliability” of the prover.
    All we need is :
    the pictures with the claimed Ann Dunham appeared in Exotique, Issue 23 , 1958,
    pages 2 and 22
    this can be checked and verified by anyone, including Gilbert
    or a notary
    I would not be surprised if it was Gilbert
    who edited it out of wikipedia

  18. avatar
    Loren October 16, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    What I would suggest is a replacement of that longish paragraph with a sentence: “Photographs that the film claims were of Dunham actually appeared in early 1958 in the magazine Exotique, before the Dunham family moved to Hawaii where Davis lived.” Footnote that by a book reference to the Exotique reprints.

    Done and done. Also added some citations to a David Maraniss article, and corrected a bit about how the film says Frank and Ann met through CIA Agent Stanley Dunham (Gilbert only mentions this aspect of the film with his most conspiracist interviewers, like Alex Jones or Jeff Rense).

  19. avatar
    Wile October 16, 2012 at 11:45 am #

    Bravo, Loren.

    For some reason, when I click on the link to Gilbert’s ad in your video, it goes to the 1:03/1:15 mark of his video ad…instead of the beginning.

    If you ever make an updated version of your video, I think it would be visually powerful to add some juxtaposed photos of the magazine model with some of Stanley Ann from the same time period.

    Can anyone confirm the year in which the following photos were printed in Stanley Ann’s school yearbooks? Gellar claims the following photo is from 1958 or Stanley Ann’s sophomore year, while Polarik claims it is an eighth grade photo…
    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2008/10/27/dunham_sophomore_pic.jpg

    It would also be interesting to know when the following photo was taken…
    http://media.kitsapsun.com/media/img/photos/2008/03/21/20080321-201033-pic-559090535_t607.jpg

    How sweet would it be to be able to show that Stanley Ann was actually wearing braces on her teeth when the magazine photos were taken?

  20. avatar
    RuhRoh October 16, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Gilbert is a guest on an upcoming internet radio show hosted by Larry Sinclair (yes, THAT Larry Sinclair) on October 22 at 6PM Eastern. The show will take listener calls. Maybe Loren can speak with Gilbert directly? http://www.renseradio.com/listenlive.htm

  21. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 16, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Wile: ow sweet would it be to be able to show that Stanley Ann was actually wearing braces on her teeth when the magazine photos were taken?

    Something else to consider is that just because the pictures were published in 1958 that doesn’t mean that’s when they were shot. Judging by the furniture it could have been anytime from the early to mid 1950’s when she would have been anywhere from ten to 13 or 14 years old.

    The whole thing grows more improbable by the moment.

  22. avatar
    foreigner October 16, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    > The Complete Reprint of Exotique. 1998.
    yes, it’s still available for ~$30
    They say 1951-1957, so the pictures were taken even earlier than 1958 ?
    http://www.abebooks.com/Exotique-complete-reprint-first-issues-1951-1957/7164375799/bd

    so easy to verify still Gilbert sends million DVDs, what did he think
    He mentions Exotique several times, but they stopped in 1957,
    which Corsi,Alex Jones, Sinclair etc. should have known
    Same with the ring … strange

  23. avatar
    Rickey October 16, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

    CarlOrcas:

    Do you have any idea if the business files of the magazine may still exist? How about an editor that may be alive? I ask because it appears the women are professional models and even back then they would have maintained files to document the ages of models.

    I don’t believe that is accurate. The requirement to document the ages of models is fairly recent. The controlling statute is the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 16, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

    What I wanted to do on the Wikipedia Talk page was to counter the inevitable argument by wood-headed Wikipedia rule mongers about original research, before it was made.

    Loren: Done and done. Also added some citations to a David Maraniss article, and corrected a bit about how the film says Frank and Ann met through CIA Agent Stanley Dunham (Gilbert only mentions this aspect of the film with his most conspiracist interviewers, like Alex Jones or Jeff Rense).

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 16, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    Exotique continued until at least 1959:

    http://www.amazon.com/Exotique-Special-Series-Kini-Christy/dp/3822874361/ref=sr_1_2

    foreigner: so easy to verify still Gilbert sends million DVDs, what did he think
    He mentions Exotique several times, but they stopped in 1957,

  26. avatar
    foreigner October 16, 2012 at 1:24 pm #

    1959 is still too early

    however, Loren showed the (“complete”) 36 issues in 3 volumes in the video
    http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Reprint-Exotique-First-Issues/dp/B007ISNU1I/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_4
    (first 36 issues, 1951-1957)
    and it was in #23 (?)

  27. avatar
    Loren October 16, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    That Amazon title is simply wrong. Exotique ran from 1955 to 1959, not 1951 to 1957.

    These kind of mistakes happen sometimes in Amazon Marketplace, because the information is provided by the seller who creates the page. Notice that the book is also written by “Author.”

    There’s a reason why most of the sets that are for sale on Amazon are listed under the better Marketplace entry: http://www.amazon.com/Exotique-Special-Series-Kini-Christy/dp/3822874361/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1

  28. avatar
    Joe Acerbic October 16, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

    foreigner:
    > The Complete Reprint of Exotique. 1998.
    yes, it’s still available for ~$30
    They say 1951-1957, so the pictures were taken even earlier than 1958 ?
    http://www.abebooks.com/Exotique-complete-reprint-first-issues-1951-1957/7164375799/bd

    Wouldn’t the current owner of the rights to the images be interested in unpermitted and unpaid commercial use of their material…?

  29. avatar
    JPotter October 16, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    foreigner: Same with the ring … strange

    No strange at all amongst a group interested in selling a preferred reality, rather than putting up with pesky, persistent, irritaingly verifiable facts.

    This crowdsourced demonization is perverse. What an obsessive crowd!

    I saw Hermitian popped up again. He’s been pining for Doc C over on Amazon ever since Doc spurned him.

    I think it’s time for a new Mental Health Week ….

    News in Brief: Mental Health Week (1957)

    Mental Health Week for the nation is opened on the steps of the nation’s Capitol Building by Vice-President Richard Nixon and Florida’s Senator Smathers – who ring a bell forged from chains formerly used in mental institutions. CU large bell on steps. The two men ring the bell for mental health awareness. CU Richard Nixon smiling …

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 16, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Believe it or not, there is a Wikipedia article on Exotique that clears this all up.

    An original copy of #23 is also on sale at Amazon.

    foreigner: (first 36 issues, 1951-1957)
    and it was in #23 (?)

  31. avatar
    Joe Acerbic October 16, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    Joe Acerbic: Wouldn’t the current owner of the rights to the images be interested in unpermitted and unpaid commercial use of their material…?

    …topped with false claims about the source of the images instead of proper attribution.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 16, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    Nah, it was removed by Erik, a long-time editor of film articles at the Wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erik

    foreigner: I would not be surprised if it was Gilbert
    who edited it out of wikipedia

  33. avatar
    Loren October 16, 2012 at 2:53 pm #

    Gilbert’s Wikipedia handle is ‘Sweethominy.’

    He’s only edited the Dreams page on one occasion, but he previously attempted to create a profile page for himself, which got deleted on notoriety grounds.

  34. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 16, 2012 at 4:19 pm #

    Rickey: don’t believe that is accurate. The requirement to document the ages of models is fairly recent. The controlling statute is the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988.

    Rickey,

    The Postal Inspectors were particularly aggressive in the 50’s and 60’s when it came to “pornography” sent through the mails. If you Google “Exotique” you will find that the publisher, Lenny Burtman, had lots of run ins with them during that period.

    Running through the hits on “leonard burtman” I see lots of references to the magazine, model agencies, etc. Somewhere in all of it I bet there is information on the model who appeared in 1958.

  35. avatar
    Wile October 16, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Something else to consider is that just because the pictures were published in 1958 that doesn’t mean that’s when they were shot. Judging by the furniture it could have been anytime from the early to mid 1950′s …

    True.

    But from the albums shown in the “Christmas Nudes” we can conclude that they had to have been taken some time in or after April of 1957.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Is_the_Thing
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Fire!

    In his film, does Gilbert attribute the “Christmas Nudes” to any particular publication?

  36. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 16, 2012 at 4:59 pm #

    Wile: But from the albums shown in the “Christmas Nudes” we can conclude that they had to have been taken some time in or after April of 1957.

    I haven’t seen the pictures with the albums in them but if that is the case it means that Dunham, born in November 1942, was about 14 and a half in April 1957. Clearly the woman in the pictures is older than that.

    The calendar is not Mr. Gilbert’s friend.

  37. avatar
    Craig October 16, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    Truth is not Mr Gilbert’s friend.

  38. avatar
    Keith October 16, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    Hey, what about that elephant in the room?

    Where’s Stanley Ann’s Birth Certificate?

  39. avatar
    donna October 16, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

    speaking of a filmmaker

    NY evangelical college probes ‘Obama’ filmmaker

    NEW YORK — A scholar behind a high-grossing conservative documentary that condemns President Barack Obama is under investigation by the evangelical college he leads in New York.

    The board of The King’s College is questioning school president Dinesh D’Souza about his relationship with a woman who is not his wife.

    The newsmagazine WORLD reports D’Souza last month attended a conference on Christian values with a woman he called his fiancee. Event organizers told WORLD they confronted D’Souza after learning he and the woman shared a hotel room. D’Souza filed for divorce in California a few days later.

    D’Souza told The Associated Press on Tuesday he and his wife have been separated for two years. He denies staying in the hotel room with the other woman.

    D’Souza directed the film “2016: Obama’s America.”

    Dinesh D’Souza Fiancée Scandal Rocks The King’s College

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/16/dinesh-d-souza-fianc-e-scandal-rocks-the-king-s-college.html

  40. avatar
    gorefan October 16, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

    donna: D’Souza told The Associated Press on Tuesday he and his wife have been separated for two years.

    I wonder if his wife was aware of that.

  41. avatar
    donna October 16, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    gorefan:

    BEST ROAR of the day

    KUDOS

    California court records show that he only filed for divorce from his wife on Oct. 4, which means he will be married for at least another six months.

    D’Souza later sent a text message to WORLD’s reporter saying that he had decided to “suspend” the engagement.

  42. avatar
    Northland10 October 16, 2012 at 8:53 pm #

    Orly and CEL III, D’Souza’s “engagement” while married, Gilbert’s porn flick, and, well, Klayman.

    Love those right wing family values.

  43. avatar
    LW October 16, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    The Magic M: In the midst of the blog post they’re trying to make
    In the midst of all conspiracy
    They will finally grasp the BC isn’t fake
    For Kim Ark was no Minor, you see?

    (with apologies to Lewis Carroll)

    Do we really want to have such snarky posts on this blog?

  44. avatar
    Rickey October 16, 2012 at 11:18 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Rickey,

    The Postal Inspectors were particularly aggressive in the 50′s and 60′s when it came to “pornography” sent through the mails. If you Google “Exotique” you will find that the publisher, Lenny Burtman, had lots of run ins with them during that period.

    I agree that there were plenty of pornography prosecutions in those days. However, prior to 1988 there was no law requiring photographers or filmmakers to verify the ages of their models/actresses.

    It became a big issue when it came to light that porn actress Traci Lords was only 15 years old when she began appearing in adult films in the mid-80s. She had shown producers a fake driver’s license which said that she was 20.

  45. avatar
    Loren October 16, 2012 at 11:30 pm #

    Y’know, when I started down the Birther-debunking path in 2008, I never would’ve guessed that four years later it would have me learning about mid-20th-century fetish photography.

  46. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 16, 2012 at 11:45 pm #

    Rickey: However, prior to 1988 there was no law requiring photographers or filmmakers to verify the ages of their models/actresses.

    If that’s the case why did Lords have to use a phony license for ID?

    I was in the television business in California during the 70’s and 80’s and we had to confirm the ages of all paid performers under laws that dated back to the 30’s and the era of Shirley Temple.

    The law you refer to is federal but there had long been laws in California (where most porn is shot) dealing with the age of performers.

  47. avatar
    Keith October 17, 2012 at 12:21 am #

    CarlOrcas: If that’s the case why did Lords have to use a phony license for ID?

    Because sex with minors was, and is still, statutory rape. Duh.

  48. avatar
    Rickey October 17, 2012 at 4:21 pm #

    CarlOrcas:

    I was in the television business in California during the 70′s and 80′s and we had to confirm the ages of all paid performers under laws that dated back to the 30′s and the era of Shirley Temple.

    The law you refer to is federal but there had long been laws in California (where most porn is shot) dealing with the age of performers.

    We don’t know where the photos in question were taken, so we don’t know what state laws may have been applicable.

    My point is that there was no Federal requirement for filmmakers, photographers, etc. to obtain proof of age (and maintain records of the proof) until 1988. The rules are known in the porn industry as “2257 regulations.”

    In any event, I doubt that anyone has any records of who was involved in the photos, given that they were taken more than 50 years ago.

  49. avatar
    Loren October 17, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

    While a handful of the more popular models in Exotique are named (because they were given their own special reprint issues), I can confirm that most of them aren’t.

    However, given the connective threads between locations and clothing with the ‘Ann’ photos, I think it might actually be feasible to determine who took the photos, even if the models’ names themselves proved impossible.

    The best place to start such an investigation would be with where the photos were published. Two were published in Exotique, but there are over a dozen more of the woman. Several are nudes, which wouldn’t have been published in Leonard Burtman’s magazines. Irving Klaw, the other prominent fetish photographer of the day, also reportedly didn’t photograph nudes.

    Unfortunately, for the moment the person with the publication data is Gilbert himself, who certainly isn’t going to share. And it’d be a lot of trouble to duplicate his earlier efforts just to prove him MORE of a liar.

  50. avatar
    The Magic M October 18, 2012 at 9:50 am #

    Who cares anyway? It’s an outlandish smear campaign bundled with “guilt by association”. It was never meant for people who care about actual facts, only to reinforce and mobilize those who would never vote for Obama but may not vote for Romney either (and thus need the “if you don’t vote Romney, the gay Muslim communist son of a black radical Marxist interracial rapist pervert will win” treatment).

    It doesn’t even come close to swiftboating or the forgery claims.

  51. avatar
    Joe Acerbic October 18, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    The Magic M:
    Who cares anyway? It’s an outlandish smear campaign

    …and that’s why everybody should care. If outlandish smearers were made to suffer at least some consequences for their amorality, this corner of the universe would be a better place.

  52. avatar
    PaulG October 18, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    I’ve been following this issue for a while and I haven’t seen anywhere discussion of records that Frank Marshall Davis ever shot any nudes, let alone sold them, let alone again to semi-legal “art” magazines. Where did any of that come from? Am I too naive to think it would at least be mentioned on his wiki page? Wiki just says he was an avid photographer. If it’s all a pack of lies, and we are talking about birthers after all, Mr. Davis is being defamed.

  53. avatar
    Unconvinced October 18, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    That Loren girl does a pretty good job at creating doubts about the photos, but it’s not like that’s the only evidence that Mr. Gilbert presents. The physical resemblence, the unusual relationship, the commie-tude of both FMD and “BO, Jr.”…

    The video is hardly debunked by her presentation. Thanks anyway.

  54. avatar
    Wile October 18, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    Unconvinced:
    That Loren girl does a pretty good job at creating doubts about the photos, but it’s not like that’s the only evidence that Mr. Gilbert presents.The physical resemblence, the unusual relationship, the commie-tude of both FMD and “BO, Jr.”…

    The video is hardly debunked by her presentation. Thanks anyway.

    You hungry or something?

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/DNFTT2.jpg

  55. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 18, 2012 at 8:12 pm #

    Unconvinced:
    That Loren girl does a pretty good job at creating doubts about the photos, but it’s not like that’s the only evidence that Mr. Gilbert presents.The physical resemblence, the unusual relationship, the commie-tude of both FMD and “BO, Jr.”…

    The video is hardly debunked by her presentation. Thanks anyway.

    That “Loren girl” isn’t a girl. Loren Collins is a man.

    Setting aside that little faux pas I have to ask: What is it you find so compelling from the Gilbert video and what would take to convince you it isn’t true?

  56. avatar
    Unconvinced October 18, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

    That obama guy just seems to hide everything. I learned from the Gilbert film that he had a nose job. Did he have that so he wouldn’t look like Frank so much? Why did obama hide all references to Frank when he did the audio book of Dreams? Smells like fishy. There are so many things the guy hides, like the big black freckles he has just like that Frank fellow. Why’s he hide them under makeup all the time?

    Are the narratives that Obama Sr. is the dad really all just Sir cum-stance shill?

  57. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 18, 2012 at 9:07 pm #

    Unconvinced: That obama guy just seems to hide everything.

    Everything? If it’s hidden how do you know it’s…..well…..hidden? Or could it be…………

    Unconvinced: learned from the Gilbert film that he had a nose job.

    No you didn’t learn he “had” a nose job. You learned there were rumors he had a nose job. If you checked these things out yourself you would learn that the rumors go back to
    2008.

    Unconvinced: Why did obama hide all references to Frank when he did the audio book of Dreams?

    Did he “hide” them or, by chance, was the audio book an abridged version of the printed book?

    Unconvinced: There are so many things the guy hides, like the big black freckles he has just like that Frank fellow. Why’s he hide them under makeup all the time?

    This is a new one for me. What is your source for the claim that he wears “makeup all the time”?

    And what about all the other black men (or women) who have “big black freckles”? Are they all Davis’ progeny?

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 18, 2012 at 10:11 pm #

    I’m glad to see you venturing outside the birther media bubble–it’s very different out here in the real world.

    I wouldn’t trust anything in the Gilbert film without independent verification. I’ve seen lots of pictures of Obama back to childhood, and I don’t recall any big black freckles.

    Unconvinced: That obama guy just seems to hide everything.

  59. avatar
    misha marinsky October 18, 2012 at 10:18 pm #

    Unconvinced: is the dad really all just Sir cum-stance shill?

    Vermin

  60. avatar
    misha marinsky October 18, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

    Unconvinced: There are so many things the guy hides

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

  61. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 18, 2012 at 11:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve seen lots of pictures of Obama back to childhood, and I don’t recall any big black freckles.

    It’s obvious then…..he’s been wearing makeup since he was a child. All part of the plan.

  62. avatar
    Northland10 October 18, 2012 at 11:30 pm #

    Unconvinced: Why did obama hide all references to Frank when he did the audio book of Dreams?

    So you must have read the book and listened to the audio book. I figure then you can show us the difference between the two and how Frank was hidden by Obama in the audio book. I look forward to your examples as you would not have been the claim without actually checking the book and audio first. I can tell you are much smarter than to make a claim without proof.

    Please show us the error of our ways. I eagerly seek your wisdom brought from thoughtful study.

  63. avatar
    JPotter October 18, 2012 at 11:36 pm #

    What is ‘Unconvinced’ convinced of? Anything? I mean, reading Corsi’s writing left me completely “unconvinced”.

    In regards to Corsi’s thesis, at least.

  64. avatar
    Rickey October 18, 2012 at 11:52 pm #

    Unconvinced:
    Why did obama hide all references to Frank when he did the audio book of Dreams?

    Better question – why would Obama hide all references to Frank in the audio book and leave the references in the print version? You realize, I hope, that physical books and Kindle books far outsell audio books.

    Hint: the audio book is abridged, which means that many things which appear in the print version are missing from the audio book.

  65. avatar
    JPotter October 18, 2012 at 11:58 pm #

    … because Obama was only concerned with fooling birfers …. and birfers can’t read. Spiteful man that Obama is, he does enjoy yanking their chain, winking as he does so.

    “Of course I called it an act of terror. *wink* Check the transcript! * wink, wink * ”

    ( :P )

  66. avatar
    Unconvinced October 19, 2012 at 12:15 am #

    Dr. ConspiracyI’ve seen lots of pictures of Obama back to childhood, and I don’t recall any big black freckles.

    Here’s some independent verification (at about the 2:40 mark):
    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/VisitsC

    Just like FMD in the youtube interview. Curiouser and curiouser….

  67. avatar
    Lani October 19, 2012 at 2:53 am #

    “Unconvinced: There are so many things the guy hides, like the big black freckles he has just like that Frank fellow. Why’s he hide them under makeup all the time?”

    If we can see them in that clip, then they aren’t hidden “under makeup all the time”. So what’s your point?

    And I take it that you don’t know many that black people have freckles….

    So to summarize, Pres. Obama has freckles that we can’t ever see because he hides under makeup “all the time”, or he has freckles we can see (not unusual for humans), and…. um… what was your point again?

  68. avatar
    The Magic M October 19, 2012 at 4:36 am #

    Unconvinced: Did he have that so he wouldn’t look like Frank so much?

    So what is it now?
    Does he look like FMD and therefore FMD is his father?
    Or does he not look like FMD and therefore FMD is not his father?
    Or does he not look like FMD and therefore he had plastic surgery to hide that he actually looks like FMD who therefore is his father?

    Is no theory too stupid for you? Look, I must’ve had thorax surgery because if I hadn’t, I would sound just like Marvin Gaye who therefore must be my father.

    If you were a biologist, you would claim the lion you just saw maiming a gnu was actually a giraffe that had plastic surgery and that it therefore is proven that giraffes are carnivores and you deserve the Nobel prize now. *facepalm*

  69. avatar
    The Magic M October 19, 2012 at 4:49 am #

    Unconvinced: That Loren girl does a pretty good job at creating doubts about the photos, but it’s not like that’s the only evidence that Mr. Gilbert presents.

    First, he [Gilbert] presents no evidence in the actual meaning of the word, just speculation based on conjecture based on circumstantial “evidence” based on lies.

    Second, the typical birther tactic of “but, but… you only refuted claims 1-5, you didn’t refute the claims 6-99″ doesn’t work anymore.
    Just like with real scientific publications, glaring errors and open misrepresentations on the first page discredit an entire 1,000 page publication, no matter how people like you stomp their feet.

    Unconvinced: the commie-tude of both FMD and “BO, Jr.”…

    I never understood why it wasn’t enough of a smear campaign to say “Obama had a radical Marxist mentor”. Why do you so desperately need him to be his biological father? It’s not like “being Marxist” is somehow genetic, right? It’s quite ironic you right-wingers claim being gay is a choice, yet love “guilt by association” when it comes to the parents whenever it suits you.
    So what’s the bonus point here for “… and he’s his biological father, too”?
    Same with the “Malcolm X is his father because they wear the same glasses” crowd.

    Is this a manifestation of some twisted sexually motivated obsession to think that blood relation is somehow worse than intellectual relation? Some perverted concept of what “family” actually means?

  70. avatar
    Unconvinced October 19, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve seen lots of pictures of Obama back to childhood, and I don’t recall any big black freckles.

    Well, Doctor? What’s your diagnosis?

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 19, 2012 at 3:30 pm #

    Birther macular degeneration.

    Unconvinced: Well, Doctor? What’s your diagnosis?

  72. avatar
    Rickey October 19, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    Unconvinced:
    There are so many things the guy hides, like the big black freckles he has just like that Frank fellow. Why’s he hide them under makeup all the time?

    Ah, so you figured it out. The only thing is that Obama’s real father is Morgan Freeman. Here is proof:

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/morgan_freeman/

    Or maybe it is proof that Frank Marshall Davis was Morgan Freeman’s father. How else to explain the freckles?

  73. avatar
    misha marinsky October 19, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

    Unconvinced: Well, Doctor?What’s your diagnosis?

    Joseph Farah found Romney has unicorn DNA:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2012/09/wnd-romney-has-unicorn-dna.html

  74. avatar
    Wile October 19, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

    Unconvinced:
    …Smells like fishy.There are so many things the guy hides, like the big black freckles he has just like that Frank fellow. Why’s he hide them under makeup all the time?…

    You’re right.

    Check out how he tried to hide ‘em in this shot…by stickin’ ‘em right up in the camera lens…
    http://www.wondaland.com/core/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Barack-Obama.jpg

    It’s a Black Irish thang for President O’Bama. You wouldn’t understand…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43Vk

  75. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 19, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

    Unconvinced: Well, Doctor? What’s your diagnosis?

    Why don’t you Google “official photograph of barack obama” and click on the one that comes up from the White House website and then zoom in on his left cheek and tell us what you see.

  76. avatar
    sfjeff October 19, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    Loren: Y’know, when I started down the Birther-debunking path in 2008, I never would’ve guessed that four years later it would have me learning about mid-20th-century fetish photography.

    Yeah- but not a huge leap when you think about fetish and Birtherism

  77. avatar
    aarrgghh October 19, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Why don’t you Google “official photograph of barack obama” and click on the one that comes up from the White House website and then zoom in on his left cheek and tell us what you see.

    because boromir, that’s why!

  78. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 19, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    Rickey: Or maybe it is proof that Frank Marshall Davis was Morgan Freeman’s father. How else to explain the freckles?

    How about the mole? That’s the giveaway to me. Notice that Marilyn Monroe also had a mole (some say it was fake but we know better) and….and….and….she died one year and one day AFTER Obama was born. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    So…where was she in December 1960? Hmm???

  79. avatar
    Unconvinced October 20, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    Well well well! What a cheeky bunch of responses!

    At some point even the good Doctor will confess along with his anti-Gilbert posters that there are indeed big black freckles on Obama’s face.

    Now let’s take a look at Loren Collin’s comparison photos at the bottom of his blog:
    http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2012/10/fever-dreams-from-my-real-father-4.html

    What are the odds that Mark Davis would have a prominent freckle cluster on the same side of his face as the prez?! Feel free to cite the latest advances in stochastics and genetics in your answers!

  80. avatar
    Daniel October 20, 2012 at 11:55 pm #

    So what kind of a moron would you have to be to make a veiled reference to genetics and “stochastics” (sic) to lend false credibility to the patently moronic idea that you can determine paternity by freckles?

    Oh, I see….. that kind of moron….^^^

  81. avatar
    LW October 21, 2012 at 12:04 am #

    Unconvinced: Well well well! What a cheeky bunch of responses!

    Yes, we are quite the gaggle of saucy jackanapes, what ho?

  82. avatar
    Unconvinced October 21, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

    Daniel, if you don’t know what stochastics means, you should look it up, you (sic) puppy.
    You may want to look up “veiled reference” as well, because you obviously don’t know what that is either.

    But I digress.

    We are on the verge of a breakthrough here. The good doctor, who has never seen the black freckles before, may have to admit the obvious. Obama’s got ‘em.

    For some reason, Mark Davis has ‘em, and Frank Marshall Davis has ‘em. Go figure.

  83. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 21, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

    Unconvinced: For some reason, Mark Davis has ‘em, and Frank Marshall Davis has ‘em. Go figure.

    For some reason Bill Cosby has ‘em…..and so does Morgan Freeman. Go figure.

  84. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 21, 2012 at 11:54 pm #

    CarlOrcas: For some reason Bill Cosby has ‘em…..and so does Morgan Freeman. Go figure.

    That gave me the best idea ever!!!
    The first annual Cosby/Freeman poetry smackdown!!!

  85. avatar
    Keith October 22, 2012 at 12:01 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: That gave me the best idea ever!!!
    The first annual Cosby/Freeman poetry smackdown!!!

    I thought Cosby was more into philosophy than poetry… you know… “Why is there Air?”.

  86. avatar
    CarlOrcas October 22, 2012 at 12:02 am #

    CarlOrcas: The first

    I like it. Doc could be the corporate sponsor.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 22, 2012 at 12:25 am #

    What I said was that I didn’t see freckles on young Obama (when he obviously wouldn’t be wearing makeup). Usually freckles appear young.

    According to the Wikipedia article, “Freckles can be found on anyone no matter their genetic background.”

    You make an essentially contradictory argument, by pointing to portraits of Obama with a freckle while at the same time saying Obama goes to great lengths to hide them.

    I looked at the photos I took of Obama at a public event in Asheville, NC, and I saw what I would describe as a freckle; however, freckles are common, and any attempt to link paternity on the basis of freckles is ludicrous, and I would say that anyone who makes such an argument does not do so in good faith. To further say that someone hides freckles in an an attempt to hide paternity is doubly ludicrous, and rings of an attempt to get folks riled up just for the fun of it.

    I tolerate cranks here, but I do not tolerate people who do not argue in good faith, or whose entire purpose is simply to gain attention and cause trouble.

    Unconvinced: We are on the verge of a breakthrough here. The good doctor, who has never seen the black freckles before, may have to admit the obvious. Obama’s got ‘em.

  88. avatar
    Daniel October 22, 2012 at 12:58 am #

    Unconvinced:
    Daniel, if you don’t know what stochastics means, you should look it up, you (sic) puppy.
    You may want to look up “veiled reference” as well, because you obviously don’t know what that is either.

    But I digress.

    We are on the verge of a breakthrough here.The good doctor, who has never seen the black freckles before, may have to admit the obvious. Obama’s got ‘em.

    For some reason, Mark Davis has ‘em, and Frank Marshall Davis has ‘em. Go figure.

    Actually I do know what the word “stochastic” means, and I know it doesn’t allow you to say those two guys have freckles on the same cheek, therefore they are son and father. Although you are correct that veiled reference may be a stretch, since you are pretty much all but saying that ludicrous idea outright.

    You’re a moron, and not a very good on at that. You’re also not “unconvinced”. You stink of birther right to the core.

    Concern trolls are even more pathertic than birthers. At least the birthers are hones about the drek they believe in.

  89. avatar
    The Magic M October 22, 2012 at 7:34 am #

    Unconvinced: What are the odds that Mark Davis would have a prominent freckle cluster on the same side of his face as the prez?

    “Freckle clusters” are not inheritable. (1)

    Unconvinced: Feel free to cite the latest advances in stochastics and genetics in your answers!

    You argue that the opposite of (1) is true. Well, then YOU go and prove it since YOU’re the one making the argument that “freckle clusters” somehow prove genetic relation.

    You’re a typical birther who makes up a pseudo-scientific argument from whole cloth and then demand the sane world to refute you scientifically by citing all kinds of scientific sources while you are not willing to believe anything that refutes you anyway.

    So we’re again back to the old “shift the burden of proof” game you birthers are so incredibly fond of.

    Just bummer the real world doesn’t work that way.

    Unconvinced: What are the odds

    Since “freckle clusters” are not inheritable, trying to revamp your argument into one of statistical probability does not help your case.
    Even if the odds are 1:1,000,000,000, they would still be 1:1,000,000,000 if Obama actually was the son of FMD. Therefore there is no correlation between the probability and the argument you’re (dishonestly) trying to make from it.

    The odds that I was born on March 19, 1955 to a mother named Marlene, once was engaged to Brooke Burns and am bald now (two of those actually are correct) might be 1:1,000,000,000, but even if that were true, it still wouldn’t mean I’m Bruce Willis, simply because I’m not.

  90. avatar
    Paper October 22, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    I don’t know, Doc. I think it demonstrates, stochastically and genetically, that the President is the secret love child of Ron Howard and Conan O’Brien. I mean, after all, the President has admitted to Irish ancestry. If that clue is not enough to connect the dots, I don’t know what is.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    According to the Wikipedia article, “Freckles can be found on anyone no matter their genetic background.”

    … freckles are common, and any attempt to link paternity on the basis of freckles is ludicrous, and I would say that anyone who makes such an argument does not do so in good faith. To further say that someone hides freckles in an an attempt to hide paternity is doubly ludicrous, and rings of an attempt to get folks riled up just for the fun of it

  91. avatar
    Paper October 22, 2012 at 8:58 am #

    Just for your benefit, I think Daniel meant that your reference to “stochastics and genetics” was the veiled reference to something else…hiding your true colors, so to speak…

    Unconvinced:
    Daniel, if you don’t know what stochastics means, you should look it up, you (sic) puppy.
    You may want to look up “veiled reference” as well, because you obviously don’t know what that is either.

  92. avatar
    misha marinsky October 22, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    Keith: you know… “Why is there Air?”

    My mother once got a speeding ticket. She asked me, “How does radar work?”

    I replied, “Very well.”

  93. avatar
    misha marinsky October 22, 2012 at 4:43 pm #

    The Magic M: to a mother named Marlene

    Dietrich?

    True story: Marlene Dietrich invented trousers for women. She had a tailor custom make them for her. When she first appeared in public, it was a scandal.

  94. avatar
    Keith October 23, 2012 at 1:27 am #

    misha marinsky: My mother once got a speeding ticket. She asked me, “How does radar work?”

    I replied, “Very well.”

    Cosby made an important contribution to Philosophical Thought with his answer to that question.

    “Any PhysEd major knows that air is for filling up Volleyballs”.

  95. avatar
    The Magic M October 23, 2012 at 6:50 am #

    misha marinsky: Dietrich?

    I wish. Besides, in that case I would likely have been born abroad. AFAIK Dietrich refused to ever return to Germany.

  96. avatar
    foreigner October 23, 2012 at 7:24 am #

    I was wondering why Gilbert did no genetical markers analysis,
    didn’t quote experts. I.e. nose,ears
    Ann seems to have an anomaly on the right ear,
    is it inheritable ?

  97. avatar
    Paper October 23, 2012 at 8:14 am #

    Because he doesn’t actually care about the truth. For one thing. Besides that, it’s overkill for something so clearly untrue.

    foreigner:
    I was wondering why Gilbert did no genetical markers analysis,
    didn’t quote experts. I.e. nose,ears

  98. avatar
    The Magic M October 23, 2012 at 8:29 am #

    foreigner: Ann seems to have an anomaly on the right ear,
    is it inheritable ?

    Even if it was, it wouldn’t prove anything, regardless whether Obama had the same “anomaly” or not (see my comments about “freckle clusters” in another thread).

    Also, do you realize that often inheritable traits skip one generation – meaning the child has the respective genetical base code but it never developed into the actual thing (some visible thing or a disease etc.) but this will happen in the grandchild?

    So if you’re looking for any similarities, it’s probably better to compare Obama to his maternal grandfather, or Obama’s mother to Obama’s children.

    Still, this is getting you nowhere. No scientist would render an opinion on parenthood by just comparing visual similarities, inheritable or not. That’s a leap back to the Dark Ages of phrenology.

  99. avatar
    misha marinsky October 23, 2012 at 10:50 am #

    The Magic M: That’s a leap back to the Dark Ages of phrenology.

    Actually, phrenology was regarded as legitimate in the States until 1865 – the Civil War’s end. Phrenology had a resurgence in Germany, 1933-45.

    True story: After my aneurysm and stroke, I had a CAT scan of my head. When the neurologist put the x-ray on the viewer, I said “If this was Germany, that would be labeled “cross section of a Jewish skull.”

    He was laughing so much, he had to pause.

    Hospital Installs DOG Scan Machine
    http://www.thespoof.com/news/us/44554/hospital-installs-dog-scan-machine

  100. avatar
    JPotter October 23, 2012 at 10:59 am #

    Hey, guys, don’t forget eugenics. I’ve seen at least one birfer hold forth on the shape of Obama’s head.

    Eugenics …that’s 100 years out of date …. the cutting edge for Deep Red science! And comfortably predates that pesky monkey trial ;)

  101. avatar
    foreigner October 23, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    Gilbert made the claim Ann were the girl from the magazines.
    He should have noticed the ear and tried to compare it.
    Also with Obama and Davis – that he always just showed Obama’s
    and Davis’ face next to each other showed it already to laymen that
    he was not seriously investigating it.
    If Obama had the same anomaly, that would be strong evidence
    for inheritence. I’m not sure if he has, I’m no genorologist

  102. avatar
    JPotter October 23, 2012 at 12:17 pm #

    I think you might be on to something there, foreigner. It’s called the blindingly obvious. Birfers are—ahem—somewhat less than sincere when it comes to research.

    You found the the light! Don’t be afraid! Enjoy it!

  103. avatar
    foreigner October 23, 2012 at 12:27 pm #

    I found quite some research at obamafile.com yesterday !
    Senior’s INS-records etc.
    But I guess, with Maraniss book this is all outdated now.

  104. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 23, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

    It’s somewhat old news, going back at least to April of 2011:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File

    I had linked to the document the following May in an article. Did the folks at the ObamaFile point out that handwritten document from August of 1961 mentioning Obama Jr. being born in Honolulu on August 4?

    foreigner: I found quite some research at obamafile.com yesterday !
    Senior’s INS-records etc.
    But I guess, with Maraniss book this is all outdated now.

  105. avatar
    misha marinsky October 23, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

    JPotter: Deep Red science

    Red state science: If it’s not in the bible, it’s not true.

  106. avatar
    Paper October 23, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

    If he cared about “shoulds,” he would have never have started with such slurs in the first place. He *should* have never made such a laughably contemptible movie.

    foreigner:
    Gilbert made the claim Ann were the girl from the magazines.
    He should have noticed the ear and tried to compare it.
    Also with Obama and Davis – that he always just showed Obama’s
    and Davis’ face next to each other showed it already to laymen that
    he was not seriously investigating it.
    If Obama had the same anomaly, that would be strong evidence
    for inheritence. I’m not sure if he has, I’m no genorologist

  107. avatar
    LW October 23, 2012 at 5:34 pm #

    Paper: connect the dots

    I see what you did there.

  108. avatar
    The Magic M October 24, 2012 at 4:38 am #

    misha marinsky: Phrenology had a resurgence in Germany, 1933-45.

    I know. Some kooks still hold on to it. There’s a subculture of believers in “Nazi science”, i.e. any crank “science” that was cherished during the Third Reich, including “free energy” or flying saucers from Neuschwabenland.
    One of my friends is the head of an organization of scientists dedicated to battling pseudo-science. You wouldn’t believe the stuff he has to deal with.

  109. avatar
    Majority Will October 24, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    The Magic M: I know. Some kooks still hold on to it. There’s a subculture of believers in “Nazi science”, i.e. any crank “science” that was cherished during the Third Reich, including “free energy” or flying saucers from Neuschwabenland.
    One of my friends is the head of an organization of scientists dedicated to battling pseudo-science. You wouldn’t believe the stuff he has to deal with.

    It’s a perpetual problem.

  110. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 24, 2012 at 11:14 am #

    I had a dream last night, and President Obama’s face was covered in freckles.

    Paper: I don’t know, Doc. I think it demonstrates, stochastically and genetically, that the President is the secret love child of Ron Howard and Conan O’Brien.

  111. avatar
    Majority Will October 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I had a dream last night, and President Obama’s face was covered in freckles.

    Was he walking through an alfalfa field? ;-)