Posted on 10/02/2012 1:07:22 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
Joel Gilbert wasn't interested in talking to me, but he's been more than happy to chat with people who aren't likely to challenge him. He's been the subject of several WND articles, he's made multiple radio appearances with folks like Alex Jones, and he's appeared on the Peter Boyles Show alone at least eight times.
And there's an odd feature that recurs in these interviews: Gilbert keeps citing evidence that he says he discovered, evidence that he says supports his theories, but it's evidence that's not actually in his movie.
For instance, when I called Peter Boyles' show and said that the nude pictures are not of Ann Dunham, Peter challenged me to explain why the floorboards match. My response: I haven't seen any evidence that they DO match. I've seen the wooden floor in the old black-and-white photos...but that's it. There are no comparison shots from Davis' house in the movie, or on Gilbert's website. Gilbert SAYS he took photos, and he SAYS that the photos match, but he hasn't actually PRODUCED any such photos for anyone else to independently look at and draw their own conclusions. And even though he claims on the radio that the photos he took are strong and compelling evidence, he hasn't provided any justification for why, if that's true, he hasn't shared those photos.
WND says that Gilbert has made "many research trips to Hawaii," and Gilbert has made repeated claims as to what he found on those supposed trips.
He's even produced a couple of things which, if you give him the benefit of the doubt, could have been procured on such a trip. Exciting things like high school yearbook photos of Frank Marshall Davis' children (who look nothing like Obama), and a photo of a vice raid at the Negro Elks Club in 1952 (which occupied Davis' house before he moved there in 1956). In a video interview with Alex Jones, Gilbert showed viewers a picture he said he took...of the outside of Davis' house, taken from the street. Basically, stuff that has absolutely no bearing on his substantive claims about Obama's relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.
Meanwhile, Gilbert keeps referring to other evidence in interviews that he insists validates his theories. He certainly wants his radio listeners to think that he's discovered such proof. But strangely, THAT evidence is missing from his actual movie, omitted in favor of things like stock footage of airplanes taking off and landing.
He traveled to Hawaii to inspect and photograph the Honolulu address that the FBI file documents as Davis’ residence beginning in 1956.Funny thing: Dreams From My Real Father contains precisely ZERO photographs taken by Gilbert inside the Davis residence. Not of the floors, or the windows, or the furniture, or even just the shape of the rooms.The current owner of the house gave Gilbert permission to enter, photograph and document the house.
Of course, that could be explained if the photographs wouldn't prove anything. So what does Gilbert say he found inside?
“The flooring in the photos of Ann stands out, as at first glance it appears to be expensive wood flooring,” he said. “However, once inside the house and peeling away a corner covered with layers of linoleum, I realized that it was a simple piece of plywood that had been varnished.”The film never so much as mentions the subject of flooring. When I called the Peter Boyles Show last week, Mr. Boyles wanted me to explain how the floorboards "match." I pointed out that there's nothing to compare; the movie never shows any comparison photos of the floorboards to show that they DO match. I was being asked to explain a supposed similarity between photos that ARE on the internet, and phantom photos that Joel Gilbert has talked about but never produced.
Gilbert found one complete original piece of plywood in a shed behind the house that was an exact match to the flooring in the setting where the “Ann Dunham and friends” pin-up photographs were taken.
And yet, no comparison pictures of the flooring appear in the film. Neither does the claim that matching flooring was discovered, or any pictures of this "original piece of plywood."
However, here Gilbert at least provides some vague description of the wood he says he saw...and it doesn't match what is seen in the black-and-white photos. The nude photos obviously don't show the boards' color or stain or varnish, but they do show that they're boards. Roughly four inches wide. Plywood, by contrast, comes in sheets; Gilbert even claims to have found a "complete original piece" of plywood, not boards.
(There's also the rather dubious notion that even after changes of ownership of the house, the same plywood sheets would still be hanging around after more than 50 years.)
Noteworthy also were the windows appearing in the pin-up photos. “The windows in the living room of Frank’s house were tall and narrow – a design unique to English Tudor style houses,” he noted.1) Nowhere in the film does Gilbert claim that the windows match.“The windows at 2994 Kalihi Street appear to match the tall, narrow windows with their bottom sill low to the floorboards seen in the pin-up photos.”
Gilbert took measurements of the windows and the floor at various angles, as well as video footage and still photographs of the living room.The movie makes no reference to measurements of the windows or measurements of the floor, nor does it include any video or photographs of the house.
So in short, Gilbert claims he gained access to the Davis house at 2994 Kalihi Street, discovered and photographed all kinds of stuff inside the house that he says absolutely proves that the nude photos wer taken inside THAT house...and then he left ALL of that evidence out of his movie.
And that's not all: while he's been publishing 'Breaking News' follow-ups on his website about yearbook photos and 1952 vice raids, what has he NOT published? Any of this evidence he claims to have procured inside the house. He's claimed he took photographs, video, and measurements, and to date, he hasn't produced even a single photograph that he took inside that house.
There's another claim about the interior of the house that Gilbert made to Alex Jones:
"Even the couch is an exact match to the couch that Frank Marshall Davis sat on in many photos."
"Many photos"? If Gilbert claims there are "many photos" of Davis sitting on this "exact" couch, where are they? Because they're certainly not in his movie. In the movie, Gilbert shows exactly one photo of Davis sitting on a couch. Given that it was taken the same month Davis first moved to Hawaii in 1948, and several years before he lived in the house in question, it's uncertain whether that was even HIS couch he's sitting on.
And more importantly: it's NOT an exact match. The couch in the 1948 photo plainly has separate cushions across the back, whereas the couch in the nude photos does not; it merely has a raised seam. Gilbert's one and only photo shows that they're not the same couch at all.
It's the same as with his claims about the floorboards and the window: when Gilbert provides any detail at all to support his claims that the photos match Davis' house, all he does is provide information that suggests they're actually DIFFERENT.
The interior of the house is also not the only area where Gilbert has cited phantom evidence. For instance, here's what the film says about Obama's birth:
On August 4, 1961, a midwife was called to the house. A few days later, Gramps phoned in my birth to the Hawaii Department of Health, as was the norm for home births...as agreed, he declared the father 'Unknown.'While this amusingly conflicts with Birther fictions that Obama was born in Kenya, Gilbert still provides no evidence to support 1) a home birth, 2) a midwife, 3) a phoned-in registration, or 4) that the father was declared as "Unknown." In fact, the existence of two newspaper announcements from the following week for "Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama" rather undercut the notion that the father was "Unknown."
Neighbors of Davis have said Obama began visiting Davis every week at his home from the time Obama was 10 years old.What neighbors? Gilbert drops this tidbit, but never identifies the neighbors, or quotes what they had to say, or how they would know that a visiting 10-year-old was a young Obama. There's no evidence to support this testimony of these anonymous "neighbors," not on Gilbert's website and certainly not in his film.
“As Ann Dunham engaged in nefarious activities with Frank Marshall Davis, who was likely involved in pornography and prostitution, why would she bring 10 year-old Barry back from Indonesia and tell her father something to the effect of, ‘I’m going back to Indonesia, but please take young Barry to Frank’s house a few times a week,’” he said.Gilbert loves to repeat the claim that Ann Dunham instructed her father to take her son to see Davis; he's stated this on virtually every appearance on the Peter Boyles Show. His supporting evidence for this private instruction from daughter to father? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It's indistinguishable from something that he simply made up. Also, as was pointed out previously, this instruction from daughter to grandfather is incompatible with Gilbert's thesis in the movie that Gramps was a CIA agent who wanted to conceal his daughter's relationship with Frank.
Speaking of Boyles' show, Gilbert dropped another evidence-less claim on Boyles' September 26th broadcast:
"There are written catalog numbers on the bottom of those photos. I have taken those to handwriting analysis folks and they have all agreed that it is highly likely that it's Frank. It's almost exactly."Gilbert's movie was released three months ago, and I've listened to a lot of his interviews, and this was the first time I'd heard him cite evidence from "handwriting analysis folks." And of course, just like the neighbors, these are anonymous handwriting analysis folks. After all, Gilbert can't risk having someone like me follow up with them to see if he's telling the truth. Keeping his supposed experts anonymous provides the illusion of credibility, without even needing real people.
What makes this last bit so brazen is that Gilbert has done this before. Remember, in his introduction to Paul McCartney Really Is Dead, Gilbert tells his viewers that he had his mysterious tapes of 'George Harrison' tested by "three different forensic labs." And he told an interviewer the same story about having the tapes forensically tested. That was obviously made-up, since Gilbert has retroactively declared his film a "spoof." Then it was anonymous and unaccountable "forensic experts"; now it's anonymous and unaccountable "handwriting analysis folks." But otherwise, it's Gilbert playing the same game with his audience.
Fever Dreams From My Real Father #4: Family Portraits
Most photo comparisons of Obama and Davis involve pictures where the two men are posed similarly; when they're not, you get results like the one seen above. I, and I daresay most people, don't see any greater resemblance between the two men than would be present between *any* two random African American men. (The absurd 'Malcolm X as father' claim at least has the benefit of the two men looking slightly similar.)
Still, if someone is primed to see a resemblance, I don't really feel like wasting words trying to convince them otherwise, any more than I'd be interested in debating a viewer of Gilbert's Paul McCartney Really Is Dead movie that the secret messages they hear in backwards lyrics are just pareidolia.
For instance, does Obama look that much more like Frank Marshall Davis than he does, say, another famous Davis?
Still, maybe even the true believers can consider this: Frank Marshall Davis and Barack Obama Sr. each had other children. More to the point, each had a mixed-race son named Mark. Mark Davis was the son of Frank Marshall Davis and his second wife, Helen Canfield. Mark Ndesandjo was the son of Barack Obama Sr. and his wife Ruth Ndesandjo. Below is a picture of Obama with the two Marks:
You can decide for yourself which Mark the President bears a stronger resemblance to, and who you think is more likely to be his half-brother.
Fever Dreams From My Real Father #6: The Omniscient Joel Gilbert
I’ve never thought Obama bore any resemblance at all to Frank Davis but it seems beyond dispute that Davis had a great deal of influence on young Barry. It’s that influence that should be the story not all this “who’s your daddy” nonsense. Perhaps that’s the real motivation behind Joel Gilberts work
This is pretty ho hum if you ask me. The criticism will have to get better than this if it’s going to be interesting.
Typical liberal response. I’ve already seen way too much with even taking Gilbert’s work into account to know that he’s another conman with a shady and unclear background with a shady past and shady connections. The guy isn’t transpsarent, lies continuously, doesnt keep promises, cheats as long as the end justifies the means (bypasses Congressional methods to get what he wants), has radical and dangerous political ideologies, denounces the US as a Chrustian nation, embraces Islam and seems to be in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood, has horrible domestic and foreign policies, is trying to change the 1st and 2nd amendments but tries to conceal the fact, etc...I could go on all day with specifics but I have a job to do.
Bottom line is you can try to cast doubt all you want just as well as the next attorney but your end game is apparent and is going to be ineffective here.
If you watch the documentary,Gilbert shows like poses by both Obama and Davis which suggests their facial characteristics are very familiar which I have to say is strikingly familiar. The photos that Loren show together don’t appear in the film anywhere together that I’m aware of. It’s a known fact that Davis was a nude photographer who fancied younger women and sold them to magazines of that time period and that young Barack was over at his house frequently according to neighbors that lived next or near to Davis. The nude photos do appear to be Barack’s mother if you study the facial characteristics carefully. It’s not that far of a leap to suggest that they could have engaged in sexual acts.
The problem with this whole “Frank Marshall Davis is Barack Obama Jr father” is that there are major discrepancies...
First...George Obama, Barack Jr’s half-brother, look so much alike. Since Stanley Ann Dunham was not both their mothers, the father of both had to be Barack Sr. This totally rules out the FM Davis-Obama Father theory
Second....this writer/investigator is also an Anti-Birther (I have listened to his interviews)....and agrees with the MSM and GOP Media with the attacks on those who truly are investigating Obama Eligibility, and want the real Obama Hawaii Birth Certificate released. And, to even prove that FM Davis is Obama’s father....the REAL OBAMA HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE would need to be released
This FM David-Obama Father is nothing more than an Anti-Birther ruse, IMO
What neighbors? Gilbert drops this tidbit, but never identifies the neighbors, or quotes what they had to say, or how they would know that a visiting 10-year-old was a young Obama. There's no evidence to support this testimony of these anonymous "neighbors," not on Gilbert's website and certainly not in his film.
“He knew Stan real well,” said Dawna Weatherly-Williams, a close friend of Mr Davis “They’d play Scrabble and drink and crack jokes and crack jokes and argue. Frank always won and he was always very braggadocio about it too. It was all jocular. They didn’t get polluted drunk. And Frank never really did drugs, though he and Stan would smoke pot together.”
While his mother was in Indonesia during part of his teenage years, Mr Obama lived with his white grandparents. Mrs Weatherly-Williams said that the poet was first introduced to the future Democratic presidential candidate in 1970 at the age of 10.
“Stan had been promising to bring Barry by because we all had that in common - Frank’s kids were half-white, Stan’s grandson was half-black and my son was half-black. We all had that in common and we all really enjoyed it. We got a real kick out of reality.”
does not equal...
"Neighbors of Davis have said Obama began visiting Davis every week at his home from the time Obama was 10 years old."
The Telegraph article hints that it may have happened, but not that it did, or if it did, but not how often.
Obama talks about visiting Davis, but Gilbert is using "neighbors" as his source.
Hahah...You are lame. The article speaks for itself.
LorenC busted.
“Mrs Weatherly-Williams said that the poet was first introduced to the future Democratic presidential candidate in 1970 at the age of 10.”
It doesn’t hint.
Where is Loren “busted”?
What neighbors?
Dawna Weatherly-Williams
"There's no evidence to support this testimony of these anonymous neighbors"
Yes there is. The Telegraph article and Dawna Weatherly-Williams
LorenC busted.
Loren is saying Gilbert didn't cite any sources for that claim. He didn't. That's a fact.
As I said. You are lame. The reference is well known.
You are purposely being “anal” here.
LorenC wants to mislead with his “no evidence statement.” The evidence is already public.
Big deal, Gilbert doesn’t reference the article. It’s already public knowledge. LorenC is the one lying to people in this case.
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.