Replies

Forget the names, the children have deliberately been misnamed to confuse. The two boys above are the same, one image is tinted, the other black and white, the b&w was substituted for the tinted image on the same webpage, but both were ultimately removed. Their age difference would appear to be within the range of one year, tops, probably less.

The above image of the family group is a photograph originally copyrighted by Mark Ndesandjo, the photograph shows the kenyan and Ruth, the older, darker child appears to reach to Ruth's waist, and must be in the range of six year of age or there-abouts.

Ruth is shown with her son, call him what you like, call him 'David' and call the standing boy 'Mark' that doesn't change the fact that now there is an age difference of several years between the two children.

And now that we have the very first image of what we assume is Mark as a child, we can see that the dark boy in the family group WAS SOMEONE ELSE, born in the same year as zero, living somewhere in the US when their photographs were taken together.

It really is a lot easier to follow if you don't accept the way the names have been used and changed and the way the children have been deliberately misidentified.

A ROSE IS A ROSE BY WHAT EVER NAME. The children don't change just because they call them Mark and David in one shot, and David and Mark in another.

There were always THREE BOYS - ZERO and the dark boy and the child Ruth had with the kenyan in 1965 up until she divorced him.

It seems the 'David' in the latest image of two boys is actually zero once again, compare to the photo of him taken in Hawaii...it's a REAL FAKE.

See:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2913366/posts?page=1826#1826

FN corrects BD who hasn’t been paying as close attention to FN as I have!

In Comment 1824 BD implies that the younger boy, David in the studio pictures, is Mark, but FN has always claimed that David is Barry in the studio pics.

So in comment 1826, FN chimes in with a wall of pictures to straighten BD out and reassert that in the studio pictures, David is Barry, not Mark, and Mark is insinuated by FN to be Roman. FN erroneously claims that the studio boys only appear to be one year apart in age, obviously to comply with the Mal-Val narrative.

Once again, who are the Mal-Val Cult followers going to believe? Will it be their cult guru or their lyin’ eyes?

Note that FN asserts that in the FAMILY picture (everyone standing) FN claims that David is now MARK (not Barry as in the studio picture) and the “dark boy” is insinuated to be Roman. These same boys that FN says are one year apart in the studio picture, are three or more years apart in the standing family picture.

Note that Ruth is notably older when holding baby David in the standing family photo with the shorter hair of a working mom on the go, than she is when holding baby Mark five years earlier in their studio picture.

“..... The above image of the family group is a photograph originally copyrighted by Mark Ndesandjo,the photograph shows the kenyan and Ruth, the older,darker child appears to reach to Ruth’s waist,and must be in the range of sixyear of age or there-abouts. ....”

This phrase stood out:

“... Originally copyrighted by Mark Ndesandjo ...”

Couple questions arise from this:

1)was permission sought, AND GRANTED, to post that picture here, since its copyrighted?

2)if its copyrighted, wouldn’t the copyright owner know who is in it?