Monday, October 6, 2008

Some New Photo Evidence

When this story broke on the national stage just a bit over a month ago, one of the things that critics of the allegations pointed to to disprove it were some photos of Palin, taken in April, in which she looked pregnant. As I have said before, the allegation is that she faked a pregnancy to cover for her teenaged daughter. That's it in a nutshell. If you fake a pregnancy at some point you will have to make an attempt to appear pregnant. So, photos of her "appearing pregnant" in my opinion show us nothing. We would expect that there would be photos like this.

However, one of the curious things about the photos we do have - and frankly, we don't have much - is that we seem to see some considerable variation in the level of the pregnancy from day to day. Now, with the addition of the Elan footage, we have some new images that we can compare with some images we already have.

First we have this image, which has been published widely. This was one of the first images used to "prove" that Sarah Palin had been actually been pregnant. (You can see a larger version of the same photo by clicking on it in every case.)

It has been suggested widely that this image has been "Photoshoped" early in the controversy to make her appear MORE pregnant. I have an on the record statement from Andrea Gusty, the reporter in the shot who says it has NOT been altered in any way - this is how Sarah Palin appeared on that day. Yes, she clearly looks quite pregnant... there's no dispute. This photo was taken either April 11th or April 13th. I have not yet been able to determine this.

Now, here's a couple screen shots from the Elan material. The ones in the black suit jacket were taken April 8th, the ones in the black shirt and bright blue jacket were taken sometime between April 6th and April 10th.

I know it's frustrating that the screen shots are a bit blurry, but this is the best I can do with my limited skills and software. If someone else can do better, please by all means try!

Then this still taken the same day as the one right above:

Then we have this shot that we know was taken April 10th.

Call me crazy, but does this look like the same pregnancy only days apart?


Jay Raskin said...

Great shots. Thanks. This is the best visual evidence that I have seen to make me doubt Sarah Palin's pregnancy story.

Morgan said...

Maybe the baby was sucking its stomach in to look smaller? Politician's fetuses are so vain..

Even blurry, those are pretty damning photos. Her belly is inconsistent and I wonder if she used a belly suit if she had it adjusted improperly on some days. I know when I was pregnant that my belly shape would shift depending on the position of the baby, but it didn't change SIZE.

How anyone can see this evidence and not say, "Whoa..." clearly has their head in the sand.

Sandy Beach said...

I think the most convincing two shots that should be paired are the April 10 shot, holding the notebook with the guy on the street, and the April 11-13 shot with the reporter.

Great job, Audrey!

Anonymous said...

I don't think she's wearing a faux pregnancy tummy under her clothes. I think she's stuffing a small pillow in her underwear. That accounts fot the different looks on different days. Some days it rides up, some days it needs adjusted, some days you can even see the waistline of her underware over the pillow.

Sarah never dreamed that anyone would pay THAT much attention to what she was doing.

Sarah Insurance Fraud said...

Video's 10 days after the day of Trig birth. April 28, 2008.

Does this look like a woman that just has a baby?

NO! I have 4 brothers & 6 sisters all with babies. It takes at least 2 to 3 months for a woman's body to get reasonable normal. If you are breast feeding....huge engorged boobs! Similar to Bristol at the RNC.