Posted on 08/01/2012 11:18:33 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
"Meet The Parents....of alias Barack Obama. Black Sunni Muslim father and White Lebanese Christian mother. Born in the ME, raised in Indonesia, became BHO II in 1982." Dr. Ron J. Polland
The “Mal-Val” youtube video at the link was posted by FReeper Polarik (Dr. Ron Polland) in August of 2011 and while morphing the image of a woman named “Val” into an image of Obama, he insinuates that “Val” is Obama’s mom. One year later this youtube has only 1,150 views.
In July 2012, two FReepers associated the woman, “Val,” in Polarik’s Youtube with Lebanese actress Valerie Sarruf and have posted multiple images of her at various ages on FR eligibility threads. I am opening this thread to invite discussion of and links to any evidence that either supports or refutes a claim that Valerie Sarruf is Barack Obama’s mother, with or without Malcolm X being his father.
Where could Malcolm X and Valerie Sarruf have been in 1960 when baby Barry would have been conceived? Is there any evidence that Sarruf could have been pregnant and delivered a baby in 1961? In what country could the baby have been delivered? How and when could the alleged Mal-Val baby have been inserted into the identity and life narrative of the person we have come to know as Barack Hussein Obama?
Full disclosure: I refute categorically all of the Mal-Val narrative as wildly speculative and unsupported by any evidence that I have seen so far.
For several years now a shadowy coterie of FReepers styling themselves as “researchers” has gone onto nearly every FR eligibility thread to aggressively refute all evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham was Barack Obama’s mother. They have actually declared flat out that she was never in Hawaii before 1963, contrary to the voluminous evidence including INS FOIA documents!
Requests for links or any evidence that Stanley Ann is NOT the mom have been frequently met with abusive ad hominem attacks and accompanied by claims that ALL documentary evidence showing her to have been in Hawaii in 1960 and 1961 is forged, but no credible evidence of forgery has offered. I make this observation as a retired Certified Fraud Examiner and CPA.
For years the “researchers” had claimed mysteriously to have conclusive evidence that a different woman is Barry’s mom, but refused to reveal her name or any evidence other than her picture because the “researchers” claimed it would disappear from the net and/or from hard copy archives of the records. But this month, the “researchers” appear to have slipped up and revealed that Valerie Sarruf has been the woman whose identity they have been “protecting.” They have since attempted to walk back the revelation, but it is clear, IMO.
The “researchers” claim that they earnestly want to remove Obama from office. But wouldn’t revealing ALL EVIDENCE of a foreign mother and foreign birth (which they also claim) be the most logical approach to removing Obama rather than hiding the identity of this alternative mother for years while attacking FR threads that sincerely attempt to find out where Stanley Ann Dunham was when she gave birth to Barry?
In my opinion, the best evidence that Valerie Sarruf is NOT Barry’s mother is the mountain of evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham IS his mother, which the “researchers” have totally failed to refute.
Again, please use this thread for discussion of and links to any evidence that either supports or refutes a claim that Valerie Sarruf IS Barack Obama’s mother with or without Malcolm X being his father.
(Just guessing, so our resident critic needn't list that as another Fred Nerks transgression.)
Susan says her mother said ...if anyone had the brains and the grace to bring up a multi-racial child....
Susan Video, what's left of it.
Strange thing to say if she said it, the girl was going to join him in Boston while he attended Harvard (OK, SO IT WAS THE WRONG YEAR) but he was an important man who would be going back to a very important government position...in Kenya. So what was the need for the brains and grace, I wonder?
That harbor photo looks like the background in the photo with SAD in a sailor type dress on a large boat/ship. I’m sure you remember that photo. There was discussion about where the photo was taken but no conclusions drawn. If you have that photo maybe you could post it. The hill in the background looks familiar.
IIRC, an eagle-eyed FReeper with personal knowledge of the area made a positive ID of the photo location as overlooking the site where the “mothballed fleet” of the US Navy is kept near Seattle.
It's impossible to tell exactly where that photograph of SAD might have been taken, there's not enough background in the image I have.
Hmm, I thought that photo was posted with more background at one point. I could easily be wrong though.
I may have picked up a cropped copy. Go to Google Images and you might find the original.
Cross-posted from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2908395/posts?q=1&;page=1597
To: bgill; Brown Deer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TykiC4GfxU&feature=youtu.be
MX SAYS ‘BUNCH’ AND ‘JOHNSON’
Aren’t they the names on the zero family tree?
1,597 posted on Monday, August 06, 2012 6:00:35 PM by Fred Nerks (Fair Dinkum!)
That video is over 2 hours long. What point does X talk about Bunch and Johnson?
BTW, my LBJ legacy comment was just a joke... of course, what I think is a joke may be a brilliant idea to Jarrett and off they’ll go making it a fact.
Um...the video is 2.10 MINUTES long, not hours long, and the references to Johnson and Bunch are at 43 and 44 seconds, in my estimation.
This is another creepy coincidence having Malcolm X on tape uttering the family name of generations of descendants of the claimed “first” slave which include Barry.
But Martha Trowbridge showed that photos of SAD with that long hair, long jaw and those lips were photoshopped.
I mentioned the name Erik Rush in my original comment, because his name appeared on her webpage once or twice, I assumed she may have owed him a credit for some research material.
Perhaps she obtained the source of the image of the woman and child from him?
We were able to locate the archive, and confirm the source of the image.
As for the rest of Trowbridge, I can’t follow a word she writes.
whoops...you meant the image of SAD in the blue suit, and I thought you meant another comment. I’ll ping you to what I thought you meant...when I find it.
just a little way back up the thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2913366/posts?page=264#264
Obama’s Mother And Son photo was falsified to deceive us.
Courtesy, The Obama Campaign
Recognize it? Yes, that’s the same photo as was used on the cover of Janny Scott’s A Singular Woman, her biography of Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother.
It’s the same photo Obama used in his Obamacare television ad.
So what’s the big deal? In a moment, we’ll tell you. For now, all you need to understand is this:
The photo was falsified to deceive us.
Truth is, mama Stanley Ann didn’t have long hair when Barack was young. Until, of course, with photoshop-type tampering, The Obama Campaign made sure we’d think that she did.
Here’s a peek into Truth. All that darkness, making us think we’re seeing long hair, is nothing but graphics illusion:
Another reality-check:
As if the deceit with her hair weren’t insulting enough, in the view below, note the futzing with the corner of her mouth, in order to widen it. See the [pink] added tooth. Look closely, you’ll see her original top lip line, curving down to the last white tooth – and the fake new lip lines, extending past the fake, pointy, pink tooth … And while you’re looking, don’t miss the fake ‘closed’ eyelid applied to her open eye.
Her nose, we’ll leave for another discussion.
Hey, David Brooks: you’re in sap good company.
Now, you may be wondering: why does it matter, whether mama’s hair was short or long? Whether her mouth was narrow or wide? Or why her eyes seem always half-closed, and hidden?
Here’s why: Obama was worried you’d find her in places, at key strategic times, with people he couldn’t let you know about.
People like Malcolm X. Times like the early and mid-1960′s. Places like New York City.
For instance – what if you saw this image? The image of his mother, Stanley Ann, in February 1965, at the wake / funeral of militant black leader, Malcolm X?
What if you recognized her?
Obama sure as heck wouldn’t want you to view the video in which her image resides:
“Eyewitness To The Assassination”
(Please refer to original blog posting for video)
Why not? Because though he claims his mother was thousands of miles away in Hawaii, the fact is, there Stanley Ann was in New York City, February 1965, there, right there, at Malcolm X’s wake and funeral.
So it just may be that Barack Obama’s father isn’t Barack Obama “Sr”, after all.
The Truth lies in the long and short of it. Of Stanley Ann’s Hair, that is.
Take a moment to view the video again. As you do, note Stanley Ann’s “habit of tilting her head to one side” as documented in The Telegraph article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8534532/Barack-Obamas-mother-the-hidden-influence-on-the-American-president.html
While you’re watching, see if you can’t recognize Stanley Ann’s boyish-looking appearance, and her weight struggle, as noted by Tribune national correspondent Tim Jones: [http://www.courant.com/technology/chi-0703270151mar27-archive,0,6704277.story ] “Boyish-looking, Stanley Ann … didn’t like her nose, she worried about her weight”.
If you need extra confirmation, take a few moments and study these two youthful photos of Stanley Ann, also released by The Obama Campaign.
In the first image, though her eyelids have also been altered [pulled down, with the skin above them highlighted], her lips extended, and her chin sharpened into a point, take note of the basic shape of her face, her nose and her ears. And don’t miss those eyes, those big, dark, penetrating eyes – which, by the way, also have been altered.
The next photo depicts her mouth more accurately – once you get beyond the tampering that’s been done to her lips [and to her eyes, and big-time to her nose]:
Honestly, have you ever seen a girl with two such mismatched eyes?!
Try as The Obama Campaign did to occlude it, Truth will out, won’t it? From the “Eyewitness To The Assassination” video: witness Stanley Ann’s grin:
From the Campaign’s own photo, posted above, excusing the efforts to widen her mouth, here’s that same grin:
Hmmm.
Did you ever wonder why The Obama Campaign never issued video footage of his mother? The eyewitness video tells it all: Obama’s mother’s mannerisms and facial tics, as well as the way she moves her mouth, are distinctive, easily recognizable in this Malcolm X funeral footage.
Oh dear. There’s only so much a Campaign can control.
If you’re not yet fed up, and can stand it, study mama’s hairline in official photos. The ‘widow’s peak’ dip on her forehead, to the right of her nose. The idiosyncratic ‘quarter moon’ curve demonstrated in her hairline profile – which by the way can be verified by The Obama Campaign’s official Mother And Son photo, above.
At first, you may not recognize Stanley Ann, with her hair cropped close. Not to worry. After all, The Obama Campaign has spent more than four years convincing us that she had long hair.
Don’t let the image-changers’ drooping her eyelids, or layering false hair, or reshaping her nose and mouth and chin, or casting false shadows or light fool you. The Truth is in her false hair. And in her eyes – her big, dark, penetrating eyes.
Hey, Time magazine: Are “We All Saps” yet?
In closing, think about this: in the “Eyewitness To The Assassination” video, Stanley Ann, standing beside the speaker, is traumatized. Why?
Because her lover, her idol, the father of her son Barack – Malcolm X – had just been assassinated.
Still don’t believe it’s she? You don’t have to take our word for it.
Malcolm X scholar Manning Marable, in his April 2011 biography, states that Malcolm’s “teenage lover” was seated in the front row at the time of the shooting. The eyewitness in the video states that he was in the front row. In this footage, mama Stanley Ann stands comfortably at this man’s side.
To make the story steamier: Marable further states that Malcolm’s “teenage lover” had been having an affair with one of his entourage [guards, assistants, etc.] This speaker could be the man to whom Marable refers.
America is starved for answers, ravenous for Truth. America, where the media is more afraid of printing Truth than they are of printing lies.
Why?
And why would Obama hide his origins?
Because having a biological father like Malcolm X – a radical black nationalist – would have impeded Obama’s chance for election.
Still not convinced that’s Stanley Ann at Malcolm’s wake? Then answer this: in family photos for a Presidential Campaign, why would a candidate release tampered images of his mother?
Can you give us one solid reason?
And oh, all ye defenders of darkness – in case you’re thinking of flaunting the Riverhead Books version of the Mother And Son photo – the one with the background tastefully tinted grass-green behind her neck, to hide the Truth about her hair – you needn’t bother. We know all about it.
——————————
Editor’s Note: When we asked the writer, Martha Trowbridge, how she knew that the photo of the woman with very short hair and straight nose was Stanley Ann Dunham, she replied:
The photo is a frame from the video that is embedded. It was filmed during the wake ‘ funeral period of Malcolm X.
ALL the photos of Stanley Ann Dunham have been falsified via a Photoshop-type graphics program. It appears that a prototype of her was created, though when I analyzed photos from various years, the consistency was not maintained.
I’m happy to send you samples of this additional analysis. Not only has false long hair been applied to her ‘image’, her eyes have been reduced in size, and her nose, chin and mouth changed.
So of course, the question is – why?
The answer: Obama knows there are images of his mother ‘out there’ in the presence of Malcolm X. So, if he consistently put out an image that disguised her actual appearance, most people would not recognize her.And it’s worked until recently. When you have the time and energy to read through that first post,you will find links to articles describing her actual physical appearance and mannerisms – validating that indeed the girl in the video – and the frame – matches the text describing her. One fact reported was how much she hated her nose!
Even the Obots, reading the Saps post, acknowledged that the photos of her were photoshopped! The only counter they immediately had was: it’s a boy.
And it seems they haven’t had much to say since.
Last week an Obot posted something oppositional to my data. In it s/he referred to the difference in distance between eyes, from nose to mouth, etc. in the images presented by The Obama Campaign, and the video image. I responded, stating that it was interesting that the poster knew EXACTLY what changes had been made to her actual appearance.
And guess what? End of discussion by the Obot. Credit to Martha Trowbridge, Erik Rush and co.
Are you saying that the photo above with SAD in the blue dress is photoshopped? Lips photoshopped?
Obama’s Mother And Son photo was falsified to deceive us.
Courtesy, The Obama Campaign
Recognize it? Yes, that’s the same photo as was used on the cover of Janny Scott’s A Singular Woman, her biography of Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother.
It’s the same photo Obama used in his Obamacare television ad.
So what’s the big deal? In a moment, we’ll tell you. For now, all you need to understand is this:
The photo was falsified to deceive us.
Truth is, mama Stanley Ann didn’t have long hair when Barack was young. Until, of course, with photoshop-type tampering, The Obama Campaign made sure we’d think that she did.
Here’s a peek into Truth. All that darkness, making us think we’re seeing long hair, is nothing but graphics illusion:
Another reality-check:
As if the deceit with her hair weren’t insulting enough, in the view below, note the futzing with the corner of her mouth, in order to widen it. See the [pink] added tooth. Look closely, you’ll see her original top lip line, curving down to the last white tooth – and the fake new lip lines, extending past the fake, pointy, pink tooth … And while you’re looking, don’t miss the fake ‘closed’ eyelid applied to her open eye.
Her nose, we’ll leave for another discussion.
Hey, David Brooks: you’re in sap good company.
Now, you may be wondering: why does it matter, whether mama’s hair was short or long? Whether her mouth was narrow or wide? Or why her eyes seem always half-closed, and hidden?
Here’s why: Obama was worried you’d find her in places, at key strategic times, with people he couldn’t let you know about.
People like Malcolm X. Times like the early and mid-1960′s. Places like New York City.
For instance – what if you saw this image? The image of his mother, Stanley Ann, in February 1965, at the wake / funeral of militant black leader, Malcolm X?
What if you recognized her?
Obama sure as heck wouldn’t want you to view the video in which her image resides:
“Eyewitness To The Assassination”
(Please refer to original blog posting for video)
Why not? Because though he claims his mother was thousands of miles away in Hawaii, the fact is, there Stanley Ann was in New York City, February 1965, there, right there, at Malcolm X’s wake and funeral.
So it just may be that Barack Obama’s father isn’t Barack Obama “Sr”, after all.
The Truth lies in the long and short of it. Of Stanley Ann’s Hair, that is.
Take a moment to view the video again. As you do, note Stanley Ann’s “habit of tilting her head to one side” as documented in The Telegraph article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8534532/Barack-Obamas-mother-the-hidden-influence-on-the-American-president.html
While you’re watching, see if you can’t recognize Stanley Ann’s boyish-looking appearance, and her weight struggle, as noted by Tribune national correspondent Tim Jones: [http://www.courant.com/technology/chi-0703270151mar27-archive,0,6704277.story ] “Boyish-looking, Stanley Ann … didn’t like her nose, she worried about her weight”.
If you need extra confirmation, take a few moments and study these two youthful photos of Stanley Ann, also released by The Obama Campaign.
In the first image, though her eyelids have also been altered [pulled down, with the skin above them highlighted], her lips extended, and her chin sharpened into a point, take note of the basic shape of her face, her nose and her ears. And don’t miss those eyes, those big, dark, penetrating eyes – which, by the way, also have been altered.
The next photo depicts her mouth more accurately – once you get beyond the tampering that’s been done to her lips [and to her eyes, and big-time to her nose]:
Honestly, have you ever seen a girl with two such mismatched eyes?!
Try as The Obama Campaign did to occlude it, Truth will out, won’t it? From the “Eyewitness To The Assassination” video: witness Stanley Ann’s grin:
From the Campaign’s own photo, posted above, excusing the efforts to widen her mouth, here’s that same grin:
Hmmm.
Did you ever wonder why The Obama Campaign never issued video footage of his mother? The eyewitness video tells it all: Obama’s mother’s mannerisms and facial tics, as well as the way she moves her mouth, are distinctive, easily recognizable in this Malcolm X funeral footage.
Oh dear. There’s only so much a Campaign can control.
If you’re not yet fed up, and can stand it, study mama’s hairline in official photos. The ‘widow’s peak’ dip on her forehead, to the right of her nose. The idiosyncratic ‘quarter moon’ curve demonstrated in her hairline profile – which by the way can be verified by The Obama Campaign’s official Mother And Son photo, above.
At first, you may not recognize Stanley Ann, with her hair cropped close. Not to worry. After all, The Obama Campaign has spent more than four years convincing us that she had long hair.
Don’t let the image-changers’ drooping her eyelids, or layering false hair, or reshaping her nose and mouth and chin, or casting false shadows or light fool you. The Truth is in her false hair. And in her eyes – her big, dark, penetrating eyes.
Hey, Time magazine: Are “We All Saps” yet?
In closing, think about this: in the “Eyewitness To The Assassination” video, Stanley Ann, standing beside the speaker, is traumatized. Why?
Because her lover, her idol, the father of her son Barack – Malcolm X – had just been assassinated.
Still don’t believe it’s she? You don’t have to take our word for it.
Malcolm X scholar Manning Marable, in his April 2011 biography, states that Malcolm’s “teenage lover” was seated in the front row at the time of the shooting. The eyewitness in the video states that he was in the front row. In this footage, mama Stanley Ann stands comfortably at this man’s side.
To make the story steamier: Marable further states that Malcolm’s “teenage lover” had been having an affair with one of his entourage [guards, assistants, etc.] This speaker could be the man to whom Marable refers.
America is starved for answers, ravenous for Truth. America, where the media is more afraid of printing Truth than they are of printing lies.
Why?
And why would Obama hide his origins?
Because having a biological father like Malcolm X – a radical black nationalist – would have impeded Obama’s chance for election.
Still not convinced that’s Stanley Ann at Malcolm’s wake? Then answer this: in family photos for a Presidential Campaign, why would a candidate release tampered images of his mother?
Can you give us one solid reason?
And oh, all ye defenders of darkness – in case you’re thinking of flaunting the Riverhead Books version of the Mother And Son photo – the one with the background tastefully tinted grass-green behind her neck, to hide the Truth about her hair – you needn’t bother. We know all about it.
——————————
Editor’s Note: When we asked the writer, Martha Trowbridge, how she knew that the photo of the woman with very short hair and straight nose was Stanley Ann Dunham, she replied:
The photo is a frame from the video that is embedded. It was filmed during the wake ‘ funeral period of Malcolm X.
ALL the photos of Stanley Ann Dunham have been falsified via a Photoshop-type graphics program. It appears that a prototype of her was created, though when I analyzed photos from various years, the consistency was not maintained.
I’m happy to send you samples of this additional analysis. Not only has false long hair been applied to her ‘image’, her eyes have been reduced in size, and her nose, chin and mouth changed.
So of course, the question is – why?
The answer: Obama knows there are images of his mother ‘out there’ in the presence of Malcolm X. So, if he consistently put out an image that disguised her actual appearance, most people would not recognize her.And it’s worked until recently. When you have the time and energy to read through that first post,you will find links to articles describing her actual physical appearance and mannerisms – validating that indeed the girl in the video – and the frame – matches the text describing her. One fact reported was how much she hated her nose!
Even the Obots, reading the Saps post, acknowledged that the photos of her were photoshopped! The only counter they immediately had was: it’s a boy.
And it seems they haven’t had much to say since.
Last week an Obot posted something oppositional to my data. In it s/he referred to the difference in distance between eyes, from nose to mouth, etc. in the images presented by The Obama Campaign, and the video image. I responded, stating that it was interesting that the poster knew EXACTLY what changes had been made to her actual appearance.
And guess what? End of discussion by the Obot. Credit to Martha Trowbridge, Erik Rush and co.
And you couldn’t just post a link?
Changes nothing as far as I’m concerned, I still don’t understand a word she writes.
There WAS a white woman at the funeral, she has long dark hair and she’s wearing dark glasses, but after the above rubbish, I won’t bother to show her.
I’ll let Martha find her for you.
Fred, the point is the images of SAD have all been photoshopped. Do you agree?
Oh, I get it, you posted Trowbridge’s article or articles about that photo supposedly of SAD that looks 100% different.
I read that a long time ago and it is too confusing to grasp. So MT is saying that every single photo of SAD “out there” is photoshopped to make her look completely different, except that one with practically a crew cut that looks like someone else entirely and looks very much like a boy.
Am I getting what she is saying?
And is this what you think?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.