After which I traced the image to a porn site that devoted several pages to images of girls wearing stockings, high heeled shoes and large earrings. The images published by someone claiming they were of Stanley Ann, one with a serial number, had been removed, but there were a number of others of the same girl.
I finally traced the original poster. It turned out to be a Brisbane 'academic' who claimed they had been sent to him by an anonymous 'genealogist' - and when I sent him further examples of the same girl, other than those he had linked to a page off-site from his blog, from which the images we are familiar with were circulated, he stopped responding to my correspondence. I didn't name him, and hoped he would be ashamed.
We then looked deeper into the comparisons between the two women, Stanley Ann and the model, and ultimately found that not only was there little resemblance, but Stanley Ann would have needed major facial restructuring to remotely resemble the model from the exotic website. Finally, a collection of the magazines in which the images appeared came to light which showed that the photographs had been published in 1958.
The site, vintage-pron com was totally wiped clean at the time of the Gilbert mockumentary. I posted literally hundreds of examples to show it was NOT the same person. And now you choose a comment I made in 2008 before all this work? Where have you been for the last five or six years?
Writing fantasy?
At this point, anyone reading these threads wanting valid and useful info knows exactly what’s going on.
Where I have been is insisting that you can’t base an entire, wild, creepily bizarre theory on the fact of your positive ID of an old black and white photo of a small boy, identified by the poster of the photo as David Ndesandjo. You claim you can eyeball the photo and positively ID Barack Hussein Obama II. If your powers of observation were so keen, you’d have never eyeballed this nudie model and positively IDed Stanley Ann Obama. But you did. So your Mal-Val theory is kaput.