Yes, we know where it came from. John Ray (the man who first brought the photographs to our attention) said from the beginning, that's where they photographs came from. You keep repeating this point as though it has some sort of significance. It would appear to me to be utterly irrelevant.
The three images were taken from this website and published here and there and identified as Stanley Ann Dunham, based on nothing more than a superficial resemblance.
If by "superficial resemblance" you mean utterly dead on identical ringer, complete with crooked front tooth, then sure.
And you are still perpetuating the lie. How?
Uh, it's not a lie unless someone is intentionally attempting to mislead. The Woman looks exactly like Stanley Ann, and the two visible Albums place the date at later than 1957 with certainty. Originally I thought the "Cuban Fire" album placed it conclusively in 1960 because the original information I got from a websearch claimed the album was released in 1960. It turns out it was only a re-release with a few additional songs not in the original album.
Based on the fact that when she was supposedly 16, in a photograph supplied by Maxine Box which she dated 1958, Stanley Ann Dunham had ONE tooth that was smaller on one side, and to make your point, you brought up an image of an eight year old with a similar tooth - BUT THAT CHILD WASN'T STANLEY ANN DUNHAM.
You don't read what I write, do you? I had already told you to forget the Putnam City elementary school photo, and just acknowledge that the later photo of her is her. This photo.
Now you're back talking about the little girl photo. Why don't you just acknowledge that the Mercer High photo of Stanley Ann, (which is signed "Stanley")Is Stanely Ann? Note that it has a crooked tooth. So we can establish with absolute authority that Stanley Ann had a crooked tooth, and likely continued to have a crooked tooth in 1960.
You have no shame.
Why should I have shame? Till I have done something for which I should have shame, I ought not to have any, and I don't.
You bought into the Gilbert BS hook line and sinker, including the 'finding' of a piece of flooring and the identification of windows, from a man who COULDN'T EVEN GET THE ADDRESS RIGHT of the ELKS CLUB and a story-line that was out by a number of years.
Well, here you are completely wrong. If anybody copied anyone, Gilbert copied me. I was posting this theory a year before I ever heard of Gilbert. Go to some of my very first posts and you will see me outlining the entire theory, pretty much as Gilbert has presented it. Sometimes I suspect Gilbert is a freeper and read my stuff. What Gilbert did was provide what I thought was additional evidence for the theory, but now that his truthfulness has been impeached, I no longer have any reason to trust that he is telling the truth about his other evidence.
Of course, on the other hand, the only proof I have that Gilbert is lying is the statement by LorenC that he found one of those pictures in a 1958 magazine. I have to accept that LorenC is actually telling the truth to make Gilbert into a liar. I don't know for sure that LorenC isn't the liar, but i'm presuming he is not lying about this, though I personally haven't seen proof.
Have *YOU* seen any proof that those pictures came from a 1958 magazine? Till this is determined to be true, we don't know which one of them is the liar. (Though I suspect it is Gilbert.)
Frank Marshall Davis wasn't living at the address in the timeframe that certain arrests were made AT ANOTHER ADDRESS.
Frank Davis' FBI file says he was living there at 2994 Kahlihi street. You and I argued about this before, and I looked it up again just to make sure it was correct. You turned out to be wrong about this, and Rummy Chick also verified this.
I gave you the links TWICE. It now boils down to you wanting to save face and not admit you were fooled. And for that, you have called me a liar.
I did not call you a liar. I said: "Fred, I hate to suggest you are out and out lying, because I really think you try to be honest, but it looks to me like you are juxtaposing pictures of Marci Moore with Stanley Ann to create the appearance that they are the same woman. "
I still do not understand why you keep doing that. You keep posting pictures of Marci Moore next to the purported pictures of Stanley Ann, as if to imply they are the same woman. Snopes isn't even doing that anymore. If even they have virtually admitted it is a lie to do so, what are we to think when you use their now discredited tactic? You aren't fooling anyone when you put Marci Moore's pictures next to the John Ray nude photographs.
CHAFF YOU SAY?
Introducing irrelevant and wrong/false information into a debate is chaff. Yes, that is correct. Marci Moore has no legitimate purpose in this discussion. Is it possible you are not aware that woman you keep posting next to the purported nude image of Stanley Ann is Marcy Moore?
Fred, I was going to try to respond to all your messages today, but it is such a hassle that I'll defer this task for later.