Sorry, but this is extremely weak to use photos from two different sides of a person’s face to try to make it look like it’s not the same person. And beside, these images have a similar open-mouthed expression and overbite. These isn’t helping whatever your argument is.
I don’t have an argument, I have a pair of eyes, I knew from when I first traced the images of the model to the free-vintage-porn.com website years ago - that the girl pictured, to whom I refer as ‘the model’, was nothing like Stanley Ann Dunham. And it’s rather telling isn’t it, that the entire website has been scrubbed of images since the Gilbert film was produced.
Believe what you like, I can’t force you to see what you don’t want to see. The model isn’t Stanley Ann Dunham and you need to ask yourself, who does it serve to have you believe it does?
And why the promotion of the falacy just now, when those images have been all over the web for YEARS?
Is their house of lies starting to fall down, and ANY ‘father’ will do, as long as it’s someone who was in Hawaii?
Remember, I’m an Aussie, I’m neither a Dem nor a Rep, I’m not a voter, I’m just an observer and I hate seeing your country hoodwinked.
you've got to be suffering from conditioning like Pavlov's dogs, to write that, what I posted are two profiles, the only profile shots I could find of 1. STANLEY ANN DUNHAM. 2. THE MODEL.
Get it? Profile images of two different women, whose NOSES are in a diferent place for starters...not to mention all the other obvious differences.
I'm glad you're not identifying people in a police line-up, you would have one of them convicted for nothing more than a superficial resemblance.