Saturday, October 25, 2008

Update from Audrey

I noticed the comment that no one had heard from me in a while.

I am a real person with a real life and a real family. Although I am very fortunate in being able to work in "free-lance" capability, I had several unchangeable commitments for this time period that predated any mention of Sarah Palin on 8/29/08. Unfortunately, this weekend is one of them. I am trying very hard to do a blog post - that I've been working out in my head all day - before I have to be somewhere in about half an hour!

I am as curious about Cajun Boy's post as all of you are. I know nothing more than what he has said publicly. I have corresponded with him, and he has told me that while he regrets it, he is bound by the word he gave to his source not to say anything. So... I am waiting with baited breath!

Meanwhile, here is a photograph I had never seen before tonight. As much as I am able to figure out, it has been said that this dates from February 2008. Anyone know concretely where it came from, and a verifiable date? Scott helpfully posted the link to this, but I am completely mystified by the "Democratic Underground" website and find the threaded discussion board terribly difficult to navigate.



(Update: Based on a link in the comment section to a full version of the picture plus a blog post in which the photo contains it's pretty clear that this photo dates from fall/early winter 2006.)

Here's what's coming:

A post about Bristol's school history, with some comments and questions. Hopefully I will be able to finish this tonight before I have another family commitment.

A long post - tomorrow - about the four pictures from Mercedes Johnston's website, that so many have asked about.

Here's a reminder:

There's a large website affiliated with this blog. To get there, you click on the "Site Home Page" link. I mention this AGAIN because of all the comments that we are getting regarding "have you seen this, have you seen that?" While I am thrilled at all the dialogue, for example, not only was the link to the Sarah Palin three day postpartum interview up on the site for a month, a full typed transcript has been available.

Check back - lots happening. If you don't hear from me again tonight, I promise there will be more tomorrow!

Audrey

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gee, Bristol certainly does have her hands positioned in an interesting way in this pic, doesn't she?

--Sandia Blanca --

PalinBaby Question said...

Well, doesn't look to me like the clothes to wear in Alaska in February. My guess is that it's Oct-Nov 2007. Any of our Alaska friends be able to make a better guess?

sandy beach said...

I agree it doesn't look like it's 20 below but it could be in the teens or 20s. Real Alaskans, like the Palins, often dress lighter than I do, having lived here for only 6 years.

Audrey, take it easy! Of course you need to take care of your life... We give you the night off!

Anonymous said...

That pic from DU is cropped. Here are a couple of links to the full photo - one is in color dated 2005, and the other is B&W and it is dated Dec 4, 2006. Piper does seem young (4 or 5) in the full version of the pic


http://thedeadguy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/palinfamily_2005sm.jpg

http://deltanewsweb.com/news/archives/2006_11_01_deltacommunitynews_archive.html

tcb in Colorado

Tina in CA said...

Excellent work tcb in Colorado!

Anonymous said...

How do you reconcile reports that Sarah Palin breastfeeds Trig with questions about whether she is his mother?

Anonymous said...

@anonymous:

Independent verification of said breastfeeding?

I haven't seen it.

Plus, aren't there pills you can take to start that sort of thing?

Anonymous said...

Reports are just that....reports. Palin doesn't look like she is breastfeeding at all and if she were and drips milk on those expensive duds....well, they might get less when they donate them to charity. Just because she says she is Trigs biological mother does not mean she is. All the evidence points in the direction that she faked a pregnancy. The rumors have been all over Alaska for almost a year.

GraceR said...

I would love to jump in on this bandwagon as I've been savoring this story, too, BUT I was at the SNL show last Saturday night and saw Bristol Palin come in with her mother. She is WAY pregnant and looks like she could pop in a couple weeks, so I don't think she could possibly be Trig's mother.

GraceR said...

Also forgot to include this link to a picture taken of her and the 3 girls and Trig taken about 6 weeks or so after he was born. She does look to be carrying around quite a bit of extra weight at this point.

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/gallerydetail.aspx?txtclr=&bgclr=&imgid=2403&type=&img=4&ch=2

Kate said...

In response to the pic posted by Gracer--yes, she is chubby there, but in the pics on Levi Johnston's sister's Myspace page she is much thinner, and those pics are from when Trig was just born. So, it seems like she put on some weight AFTER the birth?

GraceR said...

hmmm....well, if she was breastfeeding Trig, she may have put on some weight then as you need to eat fairly well to breastfeed. But that's about as heavy as I've ever seen her--and the article definitely names Trig as the baby. Note Bristol in the blue shirt doesn't look pregnant or like she just had a baby either.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I think Bristol is the figure in the black shirt, to the back of the picture. And she looks a bit chubby around her middle, doesn't she?

The blue-shirted girl (?) doesn't look much like her or Willow, but must be Willow.

So Grace R, where exactly did you see Bristol at SNL -- backstage or in the audience? What was she wearing, where did she sit, and what was her demeanor like?

Anonymous said...

A little off point, but is that really Willow in the Philadelphia Zoo picture?

According to Sarah's expense reports, she only stuck the taxpayers of Alaska with the bill for Piper and Bristol to travel on *official state business* to Philadelphia last July. Sarah's expense reports show that the taxpayers paid $2,741.26 for Piper and Bristol's excellent summer vacation to Philadelphia. Willow isn't listed on the expense report.

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/ci_10782600?source=most_emailed

Something is always askew with this lady and her family.

Anonymous said...

From the Chicago Sun Times -

In July, the governor charged the state $2,741.26 to take Bristol and Piper to Philadelphia for a meeting of the National Governors Association. The girls had their own room for five nights at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel for $215.46 a night, expense records show.

Expense forms describe the girls' official purpose as ''NGA Governor's Youth Programs and family activities.'' But those programs were activities designed to keep children busy, a service provided by the NGA to accommodate governors and their families, NGA spokeswoman Jodi Omear said.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/1235123,CST-NWS-palin22.article

Sarah likes to feed at the public trough, so I would think that if Willow was along, Sarah also would have stuck the taxpayers with Willow's expenses.

GraceR said...

I was outside when they got there--waiting in line to go in later (we lined up really early--like noon--to get a good seat inside). They got out of a light colored Suburban. Sarah Palin had on jeans and a black jacket. Bristol had on a sort of short dress with a sweater--but her belly was very large. I had a good seat but didn't see Bristol inside. She was probably backstage.

GraceR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GraceR said...

No, that's Bristol in the blue shirt. She's quite a bit taller than Willow--plus the picture states the girls' names in the order they are standing: Piper, Bristol, Willow.

Anonymous said...

This zoo picture is very strange. First of all, the kids' stated ages are wrong if this was indeed taken in August. Secondly, the girl in the rear does not look like either of the Palin girls. If the girl in the blue is Bristol, she looks a few years younger than she does now. And was Sarah actually frugal in saving a pink flowered baby wrap from Piper? Could someone who knows about looking at the meta data determine when this picture was taken and/or if it has been altered?
thetruthalready

GraceR said...

That zoo picture was taken in early July and appeared in one of the Philadelphia newspapers--that's where I first saw it.

Audrey said...

Here's the definitive answer on the Philadelphia Zoo picture. It was taken in mid July when Sarah Palin was in Philadelphia for a National Governor's Conference. It was released by the Zoo, so I am assuming they must have some sort of promotional photographer on staff who, when a celebrity of some sort is in the house, takes pictures.

The records that have been released in Alaska documenting the Palin children's travel have only listed Bristol and Piper along on this trip. (Of course, Trig is flying for free.) The picture caption when it was released as far as I know DID list all three of the girls, but I have not actually tracked down which Philadelphia newspaper it was in initially and seen the original caption. I have not been able to reconcile the two conflicting facts.

However, Bristol is definitely the taller girl in the middle, next to Sarah. The girl/young woman in the back may be Willow. I cannot tell. The "fullness" you see is a bag. You can see it more clearly when you enlarge the photo.

This photo was taken three months after the birth of Trig.

Anonymous said...

Back on the hint from Cajun Boy that the true story of the Palin pregnancy may be about to break in the press...

If the voters' take on the story is that Sarah Palin claimed Trig as her own in order to protect her daughter...and that to protect her daughter, she and her husband are willing to care for a special needs child for the rest of their lives (living out their pro-life, family values)...

then instead of disapproval, Sarah Palin could get a sympathy backlash from voters who think it's a private matter and unfair to bring up in the last week of the election.

From a strictly political point of view, we might be better off if this story doesn't come out until after the election, now that a majority of voters have already decided against Palin for other compelling reasons.
-jwc

Anonymous said...

Audrey-

I disagree with you on a few aspects regarding the zoo photo. I enlarged it and the last girl in the dark shirt definitely has a large middle. She appears to be wearing a sweatshirt. She is also wearing glasses. Does Bristol wear glasses? She is holding a bag, but it is red. The bag is also swung around to her back. Could it be a diaper bag? I do not see Sarah with a diaper bag and that is a necessity with a new baby. Another point, from a photographer's camera the last person could just appear to be shorter because she is further back. My case in point, my son came home from college a few weeks ago and we took a family picture. He is taller than both by husband and myself and our daughter, however it does not appear that way in the photo because of how he is standing behind us. Photos can be deceiving that way. Speaking of being deceived, many people have confused Willow for Bristol. Maybe a deliberate deception? Maybe all three girls were indeed traveling. Why would a mother with paid expenses (during summer vacation) bring all her children with the exception of one?? That just doesn't add up for me.

Anonymous said...

http://tinyurl.com/PhillyZooPalin

Hi Audrey,

The girl in the middle of the Zoo picture, who's holding a camera and wearing a darkblue shirt with a logo on it, looks nothing like Bristol in the versions I've seen! She has very broad, almost masculine shoulders, and a big face.

The face of the girl in the back who's in a black shirt, however, is a ringer for Bristol, not Willow.

And Willow apparently wasn't on the trip, anyway, from the expense reports Palin filed.

Perhaps you could post a link to the picture that can be more enlarged than the ones I've found.

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Another point about the zoo picture that my 14 year old daughter picked up right away...the ages of the children stated under the image do not match up to the current ages of the Palin children. Note: Trig is in the picture.

GraceR said...

The idea of a sympathy backlash for Palin is occurring already, I'm afraid. I was at Wegmans this morning and heard a group of women having coffee--they were not fans of Palin from what I could gather--but they were becoming irritated at how the press was just piling it on her everyday. As women, they were saying they felt offended themselves. One more "big" story might make the backlash even stronger.

eh said...

A post about Bristol's school history,...

What the hell for? Why do you think this is relevant or that anyone would be interested in it? She's a kid.

ann said...

"eh"--Bristol's an 18-year-old woman whose mother (after not blinking in taking her family onto the national stage) says she was a great student-athlete and really "plugged in" to high school .....and who seems to have coincidentally been out of school for several months during the time a pregnancy would have been apparent, making her school attendance records pretty relevant.

eh said...

Ann:

Her mother agreed to step into the national spotlight, and the family is along for the ride. I don't see why Bristol's school record is a national concern. You give a sad, even pathetic, explanation for what is, in the end, a lot of mean-spirited nonsense, IMO. I notice that the media is respecting Obama's appeal to leave his children alone, but regarding Palin's kids it's pretty much open season. Disgusting.

And an 18 y/o is still a kid IMO.

Not that McCain isn't an idiot for picking this woman, who is so obviously unsuitable as a VP candidate. But she herself has more than enough shortcomings to focus on.

Anonymous said...

Eh,
If discussion at this site makes you so uncomfortable, perhaps you should enjoy the many other offerings on the web.
Bristol's school records wouldn't be of interest to anyone if her mother had just produced a birth certificate. Don't blame other people for being interested in questions Sarah Palin has flagged.

Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin made her daughter the issue when Sarah Palin and her campaign tried to use that daughter's supposed five-month pregnancy to stop questions which she could have ended by producing a birth certificate (if Sarah Palin was really the baby's mother). Name-calling isn't going to solve those questions either.

Anonymous said...

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/gallerydetail.aspx?txtclr=&bgclr=&imgid=2403&type=&img=4

In regards to the above photo, I agree the girl in the back (either Bristol or Willow) looks a bit heavier than normal – she is hidden by a leaf.

I don’t think the girl in the blue looks like either Bristol or Willow but then people taken from different angles look different, but the girl in the middle doesn’t seem as pretty as Bristol or Willow normally do.

To gracer who stated the girl in the blue is definitely Bristol because she is taller than Willow, whilst your theory is right, isn’t she also taller than Sarah? And because the photo is taken at an angle the girl at the back is of course going to be much smaller then the two in the front…

The girl in the back is also carrying the backpack of I am assuming baby stuff. I don’t agree Audrey that her extra size is down to a bag because the extra size to me appears at the front, if you enlarge the photo you can see the backpack on her bag, yet she still looks a bit larger around the front area.

I also agree with SP looking a bit heavier than she normally does but you can’t in fairness see her belly area since there is a baby in the way. She also has her hair down which will make the face appear fuller than it does when it is tied up, and she normally has it tied up!

Also I’m with anonymous – all of the girl’s ages are wrong!

P.S - Someone was also asking for the photo to be enlarged – I copied the photo and pasted it in paint or word and you can zoom in or click on it to enlarge it to any size you wish

Dipsydoodlenoodle

eh said...

Dear anonymous-03:44,

Thanks for your childish suggestion and accompanying barely coherent drivel.

Dear anonymous-04:08,

Huh? How did Palin "use" (or try to 'flag') her kids for anything? As far as I know, she and they have simply responded to reports and speculation about them in the press, e.g. the pregnancy. And where has there been any "name-calling"? Although I'm about to start...

While revelations about family background are normally part of a campaign, IMO it has gone way OTT regarding the Palins -- obsessive and extremely mean-spirited in some quarters, especially the targeting of the children.

Not that the Palins aren't a little too close to white trash for comfort in a (potential) VP family, but again IMO this reflects more on McCain and his campaign than on them -- they are what they are.

sarah.hoax said...

Understand we don't even need a birth certificate, just a quickie phone call from the birth Doctor, Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson to the Anchorage News confirming the birth mother. Her MILLION dollar license, backed by Medical Board of Alaska, is collateral enough to authenticate the birth. The Board certainly wouldn't tolerate her making up stories, that my be why she so carefully couched the words in the only interview she gave!

MC said...

Eh--I can't speak for anyone else, but the major "huh?!?" moment for me was that the Palins responded to those "reports and speculation" with the revelation that their 17-year-old was pregnant, rather than with a more logical or customary official record, or even a statement from her physician.

Now, since they say that Bristol was only 5 months along at the beginning of September, they would not have had to reveal her pregnancy for a while, let alone within the first few days after SP's VP nom when the media spotlight shone the brightest. THEY are the ones who chose to put her, at least, into the national public eye--first by SP even accepting the nom knowing that the story would eventually come out; and then by releasing that startling bit of news.

Honestly, I have been surprised by how LITTLE media attention has been paid to this. It's not like you turn on Fox or CNN or MSNBC and see this covered the way that the allegations of terrorism, socialism, and now I see Marxism, have been flung at Obama. That stuff is all over the news.

But the issue of Trig's birth was, at least in the MSM, put to rest by the pregnancy announcement. There are a just few sites like this one where it's even being discussed. I have a friend much more liberal than I who came over for the 3rd prez debate. I showed him this site and he was floored, b/c he had not even HEARD of any rumors about a potential "fake" pregnancy. So, if people aren't interested in reading about it, they don't have to be here. I don't think they have to worry about the issue being flung in their face on the MSM anytime soon, or that it will sink the Republican ticket-- because they are going down all by themselves. This issue is not one that they will be able to blame their presumed loss on.

Finally, I do agree that some of the speculation on here deals with uncomfortable topics. But frankly, if Palin's pregnancy was a coverup, then one must assume, barring immaculate conception, that there is a mother out there. Thus, the speculation. Speculation which could have been prevented 7 weeks ago by taking the "well, duh" route of releasing one brief medical statement.

MC

Anonymous said...

MC, a great post! Thank you.

Anonymous said...

MC,

There is enough ongoing smoke here to show that there is a fire burning. We aren't whackos or vicious rumor-mongers, as you indicate. If Sarah Palin didn't want this scrutiny into her life and her children's lives based on her own contradictory and clearly false statements regarding Trig's parentage, then she shouldn't have taken the VP nod. It was an enormous failure in judgment on her part.

I've told many people that Sarah Palin has more personality and ambition than wisdom and character. That sums up the kind of person who would do what she did and think it storm was over because the ruse worked in Alaska for a popular governor.

McCain and the GOP, having not vetted her on the basics such as Googling her as we did that fateful first weekened, did not konw about this scandal so they came up with the best way they could think of to tamp down the story from getting into the MSM. That was brilliant of them -- and it seems to have worked as the MSM dropped the entire thing -- but a lie and a cover-up nonetheless.

I think few people outside the Palin family, the doctor, and a few close associates and (now) GOP operatives know the truth. We are right that Sarah Palin faked the pregnancy but we can only speculate on her motives and who Trig's mother really is. We have to assume that that's the best the Palin's and the GOP can do. If the Palins could kill the story once and for all -- which she must do to protect her future political ambitions -- she would have.

McCain and the GOP don't care except beyond Nov. 4 and to protect their complicity in the ruse. I'm guessing she'll never run again.

Dangerous

MC said...

Hi, Dangerous. I'm assuming you meant to address your comments to "eh" rather than to "mc". I'm right here on board this (not-so-) crazy train along with you, and if asking these questions makes me a whacko, I'll wear that label proudly! ;) But I'm hoping you didn't mean me...

And, anonymous, thanks for the compliment above.

MC

GraceR said...

I just saw this tonight on TV here. 28,000 people in Virginia started lining up in 35 degree drizzly weather at 2:00 a.m. to see Sarah Palin speak at 7:00 p.m. tonight! What is wrong with these people? This is somewhat scary--and it showed them yelling her name over and over for several minutes. sheesh

Anonymous said...

MC,

My first paragraph was inelegantly worded, but I was agreeing with you that we are not rumor-mongers or whackos as SOME OTHERS have indicated.

As I've posted elsewhere on this blog (and others no longer active on this issue), if I had to wager I'd bet Willow is Trig's mother. She's the only one that makes sense given what we know.

Dangerous