In a brilliant piece of debunking, Barackryphal proves that the pictures being circulated libeling Obama’s mother as a porn star are fabricated and might well expose the creator of them to charges of circulating child porn.

“This [a picture of Obama’s mother] picture appeared in Exotique #23, on page 22. In 1958. When Ann Dunham was only 15 years old. Two years before Ann Dunham even moved to Hawaii.

It can also be found reprinted in volume 2 of the 3-volume Exotique hardcover collection.

We may never know who the mystery model is. But the Dunham family didn’t move to Hawaii until the summer of 1960. Unless Ann Dunham had access to a time machine in the 1960s, it simply cannot be her.

Moreover, Joel Gilbert knows this. He found that opera glove photo; it was not circulating the web as an ‘Ann’ photo prior to his videos. He knows it came from Exotique, a magazine that ceased publication in 1959. From WND: “Gilbert found that several of the photos in the collection appeared in a magazine called Exotique, published by pin-up photographer Leonard Burtman, who worked in New York City.”

Thus he knows this picture was published two years before Ann first stepped foot in Hawaii, years before she could have met Frank Marshall Davis. And yet he explicitly claims, multiple times, that the photo was TAKEN at Christmastime 1960. This is not a lie of ignorance or mistake; it is a lie of pure, fully-informed malice.

And that’s the BEST-case scenario for Gilbert. Gilbert knows that Ann was born in 1942, and he knows he found these pictures in 1958 magazines. If Gilbert truly believes that these ARE somehow pictures of a 15-year-old Ann, then he’s been distributing hundreds of thousands of DVDs featuring nude and erotic pictures of someone he believes to be an underage girl.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Gilbert has thus far refused to disclose the actual sources of the erotic photos he put in his videos. He identified six issues, none of which checked out, and five of which contradict his 1960 date anyway. As shown above, to disclose the true issues would be to destroy his own claim that the photos are of Ann, and to let his audience know that he’s lying to them. And so he refuses to cite his sources, even when they’re just magazine issue numbers.

So there you have it. The people who’ve said ‘Frank Davis took naked pictures of Stanley Ann Dunham in December of 1960’ are provably wrong. The woman they claim is Ann was having her photographs from this very shoot published at least as early as 1958. When Ann was a 15-year-old in Washington, years before she ever stepped foot on Hawaii or could have conceivably even met Frank Marshall Davis. Joel Gilbert has unnecessarily obscured the actual publication dates of the pictures he found, because he knows those simple facts will prove to everyone that he’s lying about them being taken in 1960, and lying about Frank Marshall Davis taking them of Ann, and lying about them being evidence of an intimate relationship between Frank and Ann.

As I wrote in my first post in this series, “I can’t promise that I’ll convince everyone that Joel Gilbert is a charlatan and his film is a joke, but I think by this time next week, anyone who continues to trust Gilbert has some depressingly low standards for what they’ll believe.” I’m sure some people will still prefer to believe in him and his photos, and nothing will convince them otherwise. To them, I can only say this: just as Joel Gilbert has known for months, you now know that his photos were being published in 1958. Possibly even earlier. So if you still want to believe that the woman in those photos is Ann Dunham, that means you also have to believe that the woman in those photos is no more than 15 years old. Keep that in mind as you talk about them, and post them online, and save them on your computer. I know you’re not doing anything illegal or morally disgusting (because it’s not Ann), but what are you telling yourselves?

Finally, even though I’ve reached #1 in this series and I think I’ve solidly proven my case, I had two more research developments on Monday that I’ll be typing up in the next few days. So be sure to keep an eye out for those to come.”

Comment:

American media culture gives me a severe migraine with its schizophrenia.

It’s a proud achievement that merits putting her on Time’s list of the hundred most influential people when one Erika Leonard  promotes pedophilic bondage and sadism…..

And it’s positively chic for the French president’s wife (or is it his ex-wife? I lost track..) Carla Bruni, to have actually posed for explicit photos and have a collection of them hovering in the background, ready for use for blackmailing at any time.

It’s super for Gore Vidal to have been a  pederast…and have endorsed and promoted the work of the documented child-abuser Alfred Kinsey,

It’s hip for women of all persuasions (from Wendy McElroy on the right to Naomi Klein on the left) to publicly discuss their sexual histories…

But if some one digs up some highly questionable photos purporting to show a woman who doesn’t even look much like Obama’s dead mother in soft-porn poses, then porn is suddenly a sign of degeneracy, perversion and immorality, the end of the republic is at hand, and Alex Jones gets to pound the table to tell us he’s mad about it.

Which is it?

The American media and the public can’t make up their minds.

To me it looks like it amounts to this:

Porn is chic and wonderful when our kind of people.…white – especially Jewish, liberal/libertarian, wealthy, aristocratic (or with pretensions to aristocracy) do it …. and when one of our favorite corporations or corporate honchos are selling it and making tons of money off of it.

It’s suddenly terrible and awful when we use it to smear someone who isn’t one of us…who’s half-black, a socialist, possibly a foreigner, maybe even, God forbid, a “Muzzie.”

I saw this story in 2008.  But it’s far too speculative, irrelevant to public interest, and a horrendous abuse of privacy. It is really nothing more than an excuse to trash a dead woman in titillating terms that translate into website hits and media.

The sexual histories of presidential candidates (unless there is the possibility of blackmail) should be off-limits.

Even if there is a story involved (as in the Clinton sexual harassment/assault cases), it should be handled in a discreet manner, consonant with the dignity, right to privacy, and presumption of innocence of all people, even government operatives/bureaucrats.

The sexual histories of family members of political candidates are even less relevant than the candidates’ histories.

Besides those considerations, the photos themselves don’t amount to much. Anyone can dig up a picture on the net that bears a resemblance to someone. Ann is a common first name. There is surely an Ann of roughly the same physical proportions as Ms. Dunham who worked somewhere in the porn industry at some time.  A little photo-shopping, a refusal to cite sources (thank god for anonymous sources – they can tell you anything you want about your enemies, right?) – and there – a human being can be turned into a whore, pedophile, pimp, or anything else.

The dates don’t match. The photos don’t look alike. The whole thing is bogus.

But the damage is done.

A woman who isn’t here to defend herself is maligned in the worst way in a medium that is indelible, eternal and global.

This is the real truth of  the so-called “woman” friendly face of the West.