Monday, November 24, 2008

Ongoing Questions about Trig Palin's Birthdate

Here's a comment that came in as a response to my previous post concerning the accurate dating of the "Pink" prom photos found on Mercede Johnston's MySpace page.

I believe you're right Audrey but even if the prom was held on one of the earlier dates, we received no proof of Trig being born on April 18th. Maybe he was several weeks old by that date...unless there's something I missed and April 18th was confirmed as the birth date.

Per se, you have not "missed" anything. However, I have been looking at all evidence on this matter for months now. I know that many different scenarios have been proposed. In a comment within the last couple of weeks someone suggested that Trig could have been born as far back as February, though I can't remember why the person thought that was possible and actually cannot locate that comment right now.

I certainly might be proved wrong on this issue, but here's my call. I believe that someone was in labor on April 17th. Without that fact, Sarah Palin's very public, very visible, very commented on, and extremely implausible trip from Texas to Anchorage, which commenced around 2 PM (Central Time - 11 AM Alaska Time) on the 17th and ended up 12 hours later at Mat-Su Hospital in Palmer makes no sense. The only reason we really have something to talk about now is because, on April 17th, she left a conference early, changed her travel plans, got on an airplane, told people that the reason she did this was because she was in labor, and then - voila - produced a baby six hours later. If Trig Palin was already born, and "stashed" somewhere, this trip (and dramatic production of baby the next morning) makes no sense.

Was Trig Palin born
1. at 6:30 AM on April 18th Mat-Su Regional Hospital in Palmer Alaska,
3.delivered by family practice doctor Cathy Baldwin-Johnson?

I think all three of those statements could be questioned. But I believe both his birth day and time were very close to this. While I will always look at new information as it becomes available, attempts to place the birth too far outside of this time slot are a distraction at best.


Anonymous said...

"Was Trig Palin born
1. at 6:30 AM on April 18th Mat-Su Regional Hospital in Palmer Alaska,
3.delivered by family practice doctor Cathy Baldwin-Johnson?"

Just three little facts. Information that describes any birth, anywhere, for any baby. "Where was your baby born?" "What day and time?" "Who delivered your baby?"

Details that anyone might casually ask a new mom, out of innocent curiousity, perhaps when meeting her during a grocery trip with the baby. Or sharing birth stories with another new mom at at the ped office for a well-baby check. There is a natural impulse--call it pride, if you like--for new mothers to share their birth experience, share details of their new baby's welcoming moment into the world, with anyone who is willing to ask.

I have never seen such a complete veil of secrecy and lack of detail regarding the birth of a child. What is the rationale behind the non-disclosure of details in Trig's birth? Why not provide those three little facts to the public? Because you don't 'have to'? Or because you don't have them? Public figures face very different standards for disclosure. If you are going to be in the public eye, if you choose that harsh spotlight, you must be willing to quid pro quo, trade the support and attention for information.

Let me remind you, Sarah Palin supporters, family, and friends who read this blog: nothing to hide? then nothing to fear. Something to hide? Secrets don't stay hidden forever. The longer you continue to ignore requests for the truth, the worse it will be for you when the truth comes out. And waiting for your daughter to have her baby so you can triumphantly point to the birth date as evidence that she could not ever be Trig's mother, well, that won't fly. Recall Peter and the Wolf. He lied and lied and finally when he tried desperately to tell the truth, well, no one believed him. So no matter when Bristol's baby is born, early or late, big or small, no one is going to believe you. Because in April of this year, you choose to tell a whopper of a lie regarding the birth of Trig. Not a lie? Then give us these three little facts. Not on letterhead. In public, with legal documentation, with evidence. And then we might just believe you. But until then, you'll just have to deal with this particular Wolf.

--Two Blue Jays

Grandmaj said...

Yes but, if we believe she concocted the story in the first place, it is possible to believe she might concoct anything. I understand your need to keep this within the realm of "reason" but really, I'm not sure if anything about Sarah Palin is within the realm of reason.

BG said...

Audrey--I agree. And I wonder to what extent the "prom photo" raised some of the "Trig was born earlier" theories. As I said before, it makes no sense for SP to have continued to fake a pregnancy if a baby already existed. She would have had to debut the baby for the public to see and would have raised many more doubts had she produced a several-week-old baby. Also, if she had planned to "stash" Trig for a few weeks, she certainly would have upped his birthweight to conpensate for his age. I also believe someone was in labor on April 17-18. Someone to whom SP had to rush back to Alaska.

History Chasers said...

Have you watched the Greta Wire interview filmed in March. In it Gov. Palin is visably pregnant. She is asked if the sex of the baby is known and she says; "Yes,it's a boy."

Anonymous said...

Audrey's two most recent posts do a very good job of narrowing the scope of valid speculation, although I suspect that wild speculation will continue on both issues. (Trig's actual birth date and the dates of the Sadie/Bristol prom dress pictures)

Ambiguity is the partner of deception, and I'm sure the Palins and their assistants in this cover-up want as much ambiguity to persist as possible. That is one explanation for the removal of all pictures from various web sites, since contemporaneous pictures are unequivocal evidence, as Audrey showed by being able to conclusively date the Sadie/Bristol picture as taken on April 25th. Therefore, the picture does not help to prove that Bristol is not Trig's mother. If it had been from much earlier in April, it would have been conclusive evidence that she wasn't.

Pegging Trig's actual birth date is more problematic as newborns look small for several weeks before clear development starts. Many infants actually lose weight after birth, and may take some time to regain their birth size. This ambiguity has led to all sorts of speculation on these pages based on Trig's appearance. Yet, all the various photos are inconclusive as to Trig's birth date without an independent marker.

Our conclusion on Trig's actual birth date on just before April 18 is due to contemporaneous photos that strongly indicate he was a newborn (also based on the Heaths' assertions) and no other logical reason to explain SP's magical mystery tour from Texas to Alaska to be with newborn Trig. There may have been some other reason SP had to return to be with Trig, but nobody has shown any evidence to support an alternate theory.

Dr. CBJ did provide some fodder for alternate theories based on the statement that Trig needed treatment for jaundice and that resulted in an unscheduled trip to a hospital that required SP to dash home rather than allow Trig to remained stashed until a convenient end to the ruse. This theory is plausible and there is no evidence to contradict it. Even so, it seems unlikely that Trig was born much before April 18th.

Then again, I've been rethinking some of our assumptions and SP is clearly a publicity hound prone to reckless behavior whether her labor and delivery story is true or not. Our assumption has been that she faked the pregnancy to cover for one of her daughters (Bristol being the most popular candidate), but given her personality traits I'm not sure we can immediately reject the notion that she faked the pregnancy for attention and they planned to adopt or had to scramble to adopt to cover her whacky pronouncement.

Such a scenario is also consistent with the facts in evidence, and it could be that everyone is covering for SP, who may be more of a nut-job than we imagined. That would mean that some unknown woman is Trig's mother and gave him up for adoption through Dr. CBJ, and may have known about the DS and couldn't care for the child.

As loudly as I've been suggesting that Willow could be Trig's mother, I am beginning to think that this is all about Sarah Palin, and she faked the pregnancy for attention.


Anonymous said...

The idea of an earlier birth was suggested to explain 1}Why birth certificate wasn't released; 2}Why a 5-week early baby weighed over 6 lbs.; 3}When Trig was treated at the hospital for jaundice (his admission to the hospital for treatment may have been the reason for the wild ride home, since his home birth had not been acknowleged); 4)How Bristol could be the mom and be close to 5 mos. pregnant for the RNC; and 5)Why Palin announced a pregnancy when she did, the idea being that no one had amnio but a baby was born with DS and a planned adoption couldn't happen and so she threw on her belly pads at 7 mos.

All were unlikely What If's. There may have been some more.

So Trig was born around April 18 to someone. And if Bristol delivers a full-term baby in a month, she isn't that someone. -B.

Anonymous said...

Have to agree with you, Audrey. Your great sleuthing on the prom photo to establish a date for that event makes the scenario you've described here the most straightforward way to account for all the evidence that's available(both physical and psychological, both concrete and circumstantial).

The pieces really are starting to fall into place - your tenacity & perseverance are amazing, and I applaud your extraordinary efforts in seeking the truth!

Anonymous said...

What if they had to take the recently born-at-home Trig to the hospital because he'd developed severe jaundice? Wouldn't Sarah have had to hurry home before they took him in?

Anonymous said...

If Sarah is indeed Trig's Mom, she would have conceived him in August, 2007 in order to be due in May of 2008 or July, 2007 to be due in April, 2008. Below is a link to a website showing her in Kuwait on July 24, 2007 when she was visiting the Alaskan National Guard troops.

I haven't seen anything that mentions whether Todd accompanied her on that trip to Kuwait. Did she get pregnant on that trip or right after? Or ..... did Bristol get pregnant while Sarah (or Sarah AND Todd) was/were away on that trip? Questions, questions, questions! Will we ever know the answers?

Anonymous said...

Just a few of random thoughts:
1- major thanks to your Burchell High tipster. Hopefully, s/he had even more useful information...and more helpful people will come forward.
2- the picture of Bristol w Mercedes is entirely consistent with being one week post partum. I am of similar size, gained 26 lbs, and lost all of my baby weight within one week (with no special effort, but with the advantage of youth).
3- has anyone researched all of the people closest to SP leaked on her email:
4- Thanks again Audrey for your persistence and rationality. I think when the truth comes out, the book deal should go to YOU

Anonymous said...

Not to jump on one of Dangerous' wild ideas, but here goes:

Maybe SP really was covering for Willow and not Bristol. There are enough people out there who think Bristol may be the mom, that they purposefully "wipe" prom photos that arguably could "prove" Bristol was not the mom. Leaving just enough so we all jump on the "Trig is Bristol's" bandwagon. Maybe they WANT us to go down that path, instead of looking harder at Willow. OKay, I need to readjust my tinfoil hat now....

Tony said...

I've worked as a registered nurse at Johns Hopkins Hospital for twenty years. The doctors and nurses I work with are very smart people. We make decisions and clinical jugements based not only on facts, but as medical practitioners, we must tune in to our keen senses that tell us something is not right. In this case, the story is not credible based on the facts. Please do not give up on your search for the truth. Our minds are far to curious for the facts. I don't think it is a personal privacy issue if she wishes to earn the public trust and serve the people she lied to.

Anonymous said...
"In a comment within the last couple of weeks someone suggested that Trig could have been born as far back as February, though I can't remember why the person thought that was possible and actually cannot locate that comment right now."
Maybe the February date stems from speculation that Bristol went into labor after the car accident in Feb.

rachel said...

Another random thing-- I just searched for Briston on and there is no mention of this whole pregnancy cover up theory. Weird.

Anonymous said...

Glad we got the prom straightened out. They really go all out for these events. Too bad Bristol didn't get to go to a prom.

Thinking about the wild ride: if it was to admit Trig to the hospital for jaundice, and the information got to SP in the early morning, wouldn't it have been dangerous enough to prompt an immediate return to Wasilla?

sandra in oregon

Mary G. said...

Unless the custom-built house in Wasilla has a dungeon, I do not see how Palin could have gotten away with concealing not just Bristol, but a newborn as well. It really turns the mother-switiching plot into something more like unlawful restraint and possiby kidnapping. Sarah Patron Saint of Special Needs and All Life is quite a heady mantle for her--egomaniacal, blinded by ambition, perhaps--a certifiable nut case, I don't think so. Mary G.

Anonymous said...

No one every really considers that maybe Bristol was in on it. Growing up in a conservative state (Indiana) in the 1960s, moms "adopting" daughters' babies was not something that was unheard of. I can think of three families I know of where it happened and it was a small town. It was always sorta an open secret - no one ever faked a pregnancy - but it was considered the best of both worlds for the teen. She got to be around and see her baby - not have to give it up - but she could go on with her life and still be a kid, not have to be a mom at 15 or 16.

Everyone seems to think Bristol was locked up in a closet. I still don't know why there was such a need for secrecy and why Sarah Palin could not just do what worked in the 1960s, take the baby on and not say much more, but I think Bristol might have agreed to the plan.

Anonymous said...

audrey your breakdown of events is quite good.

my one recurring thought on trig was his size when we first met him.

I had my 8mos old grandson with me, holding him carrying him in my arms, just a week before seeing trig.

...when i saw trig he was just too big to be the age they claimed.

I still maintain you cannot carry a 5mos old baby the way we saw those kids do it on stage after stage.

I still think some thing is missing...

jeanie said...

There are three reasons I can think of to put off "the delivery" even if Trig had been born a few days earlier than the 18th.

The first is so that Sarah could make that conference in Texas. I don't know how important that particular conference was, but it may have been worth it to her to have held out a few days beyond Trig's actual birth date to announce her own labor, etc.

The second is because she had probably overestimated her own 'due date' so that she did seem more convincingly pregnant. Whenever the scheme was concocted, she held off until March to announce her pregnancy for a reason. It definitely would have raised even more eyebrows for her to claim to be nearly 8 months along at that point. So finding a happy medium - giving a month cushion in case Bristol delivered late but not wanting to appear to be too premature herself if Bristol didn't deliver late (I don't know - who knows what she was thinking) might have been factored into SPs purported due date.

The third reason would be to give Bristol a few days in hiding to recover and look less like she HAD just given birth.

Obviously it wouldn't hold up for SP to claim delivery more than a few days after the actual birth. But between the jaundice admission and the size that Trig appears to be between the Mercedes picture and the Palin's parents picture, it does seem possible that April 18th wasn't the actual birth date.

Eva New Orleans said...

I have been interested in the baby issue since the day the McCain campaign announced the teenage daughter of Sarah Palin was pregnant. I am puzzled about how she so readily exposed the second pregnancy when she seemed to have gone to so much trouble to fake the first one. Why go to so much trouble to hide the first and then throw the second one right out there?

But I am not really surprised about the cover up of the first teen pregnancy. I know a lot of people were previously telling their birth stories and that has now stopped but no one related any stories of hidden teen births in their family. It happened to mine in the 40’s. My mother’s teenage cousin and her family left the small town they lived in and when they returned a year later the mother had a new baby – to the surprise of everyone since she was in her mid-forties. In telling me this story many years before 2008 my mother always related the story in a way to indicate that everyone in town knew the baby belonged to the daughter and not the mother. As a child of the freewheeling 70’s I couldn’t believe that the ‘secret’ lasted until the child’s mother and grandmother had passed away. My mother’s explanation was that the community felt that it was not anyone’s place to cause pain and heartache to the family – that the situation was working and who were they to question anything. Now I know that this is not the 1940’s but I think the behavior of the people surrounding the family is naturally supportive. In the minds of the community it is not their business and if Palin were not in the public spotlight I am sure that would be the end of it.

I do believe this is one of the reasons why no one is talking. They live in a very small insular community, cut off from the rest of the US so they naturally feel protective of each other against the outsiders. I think the questions and the offers of money for a tell all kind of brings them together. I am speaking of the group as a whole, though, and I do believe like others on this blog that someone will break. That the truth will come out.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous at 10:44 and others,

The theory that Willow could be Trig's mother is just that -- a theory -- but one that the evidence and actions by the principals to date do not rebut. That could change with solid evidence of Willow's whereabouts, but until then she was physically capable of having a child and to ignore her as a possible parent is a blind spot that could result in false conclusions in the end.

I agree that announcing Bristol's current pregnancy is a cleverly conceived rabbit hunt. It makes sense to attack a theory at its weakest point. But if Bristol has a full term child in December as announced, we are left with not very good theories of Trig's real mother except:

1) Willow
2) Sarah (who is, therefore, clearly then reckless)
3) Some other woman, which makes Sarah's faked pregnancy even more bizarre

I'm curious how everyone else would rank these explanations, if it can be shown conclusively that Bristol is not Trig's mother.


Anonymous said...

I've been following this blog for months now, mostly because I've been horrified at the notion that Sarah Palin might successfully run for national office. Trig's story has only gotten more interesting as Audrey and readers have put the facts together.

But today I woke up feeling very sad for Bristol. Regardless of whether Trig is her son, she's pregnant now and has had to drop out of school. She and Levi were paraded around by the McCain campaign during the convention, Bristol was offered as a babysitter when Sarah was on SNL, Bristol's MySpace and Facebook pages and those of her closest friends and family have been put under a microscope, and we don't know whether she and Levi will actually get married. I guess I just feel like her life is a mess and I can only imagine how scared and alone she must feel right now.

Think about all the different schools she's attended and the different houses she's lived in over the past year. Think about her wacko Mom and Todd caring more about their own images and lives than those of their kids.

Bristol apparently went from living a very wild, unsupervised life to living in a quasi-lockdown situation. Do you think she even sees her friends anymore or are they all too afraid to be associated with her?

There's a part of me that wants to pursue Trig's birth story to the hilt because I don't believe for a second that Trig is SP's child. I also don't want Sarah to gain any further national prominence.

On the other hand, I feel like I should walk away from the blog and this discussion because Bristol is the one who is the victim in this case, having to hide from the media and lie for her mother. What kind of a life is that? And where's Levi... up in the oil fields on the Slope while she endures this by herself?

Liz from NH

Silver Salmon said...

I've seen a few sites comment that Levi went to Burchell (for example:

Since he went there and could quite legally go to prom, why wouldn't he take Bristol?

Conspiracy theorist in me answers, She wasn't permitted to make plans to go with him because Trig wasn't due for another month and surprise, surprise, he was early.

Jack Bog said...

The reason people are so eager to push the date of Trig's birth back is that they really want Trig to be Bristol's baby, and they also believe that Bristol is now seven or eight months pregnant.

I strongly doubt the latter proposition. When I see two babies, I'll start worrying about when the first one was born.

BG said...

Dangerous--how would you be able to determine "full term" for BP's kid? I had two full term babies, both of whom were under 6 lbs. If this happens to BP will you assume the baby is not full term? I truly think the Willow theory is a stretch.

Mary G. said...

Eva and anonymous @12:51 bring up good points, although we have discussed them before. It is not unusual today for grandmothers (or other family) to adopt or become legal guardians of the babies that teenagers or those unable to raise children bear. It is often a workable solution. But it takes consent on both sides. In earlier days, when "nobody" mentioned how the older mother had a new baby after many years, we do not know that the daughter really felt good about that. In today's world, there really is no stigma attached to such an event. The problem is Palin's religious belief system and its political ramifications--Palin wants "abstinence only" education in schools even while witnessing its woefully inadequate application in practice. But she cannot admit this. And so, like many ridiculous injunctions forced upon people, this one will have lies and concealment undergirding it.
Bristol's situation is poignant. But to what extent is a minor the creature of her parents? Do they have some right to her children? The religious right thinks so. Mary g.

Audrey said...

I think that the several people who had pointed out what Bristol's role might have been (if there was a cover up) are on to something important, which addresses a couple of issues.

First, I don't think it is at all unlikely that Bristol may well have been accepting of the situation. I personally knew of a family where a teen's baby was adopted by, not the girl's mom, but the girl's older sister. The girl was thrilled with the plan. She did not want to give her baby up, but she was only 15 and did not really want to be a mom either. So she got the best of both worlds. She got to see the baby, still be part of his life, but as a loving young aunt instead of a mom.

If Bristol was cooperating, it is entirely possible that this secret could have been kept by only a few people. My guess is that Bristol would not have been living in Wasilla (where she would have been better known) but in Anchorage with her aunt. Anchorage is a big city, 200,000 or so, and let's face it, one sweatshirt wearing teen looks pretty much like another. She could have gone about in Anchorage in a baggy clothes and winter coats during the day (when school was in session) and no one would have given her a second glance, as long as she avoided places specifically frequented by West High Students. And stayed in at night. I think with a few simple precautions you could hide someone in plain sight like this pretty easily.

If Bristol was cooperating, I think the secret could have been known by just a handful of people, her parents, her aunt, and a medical person.

Eva said...

Mary G. - Thanks for helping me make my point. I didn't realize that the issue had been discussed previously and when I wrote my comment I had just read other comments about how no one in the community was talking. (I think the comments were on other topics and I may have gone to "Ongoing Questions about Trig Palin's Birthdate" to post by mistake)

Anyway I was thinking of why indeed, was no one in Wasilla willing to talk about the true parents of Trig and I thought of that story.

Has it been addressed on this forum why Bristol won't discuss it? Or the very chatty teens on MySpace? If this was done against Bristol's or Levi's wishes the propulsion of SP on the national stage is the perfect opportunity for them to speak out without fear of retribution.

And if Trig is indeed the son of SP and TP then why isn't it being sung from the mountain top? Even if she believes discussing it is beneath her she can arrange to have info leaked so that the issue would be put to rest.

Anonymous said...

Here's a speculative theory I've been mulling over today. I'll go with the assumption that Bristol is Trig's biological mother, not Sarah.

What if Sarah's "pregnancy" wasn't announced until she was allegedly in the third trimester because Sarah herself didn't know that Bristol was pregnant? Bristol could have had many reasons for hiding a pregnancy. Teens have been known to hide a pregnancy because they're afraid of their parents' reactions, they fear being kicked out of the house, they're in denial over the pregnancy as a whole and think if they pretend it isn't there, it will just go away, or they fear being pushed into an abortion if the pregnancy is revealed early on. That last one seems a bit unlikely considering Sarah's anti-abortion stance, however, I have worked for and with pro-choice organizations and clinics before, and you'd be surprised how many people publicly proclaim themselves "pro-life" but have had an abortion (or two) before or who suddenly feel entitled to exercise a right to choose if an unplanned pregnancy happens to them or to a family member.

So... perhaps Bristol concealed the pregnancy until she couldn't hide it anymore. At which point Sarah found out about it and a decision was made that she would pretend to be pregnant and claim the baby as her own.

In this scenario, Bristol likely would NOT have known her exact due date, so Sarah would have had to guess on how far advanced her own pregnancy would have to be. It's possible Bristol could have had minimal prenatal care, especially if the pregnancy was kept secret until it was quite advanced, so a diagnosis of Down Syndrome, either prenatally or after birth, would have been quite a shock. In fact, if Bristol DID conceal a pregnancy and an ultrasound was not done until later in the pregnancy, soft markers for DS and the possibility of a child with DS might have led both her and Sarah and Todd to panic and come up with the idea of Sarah faking a pregnancy.

We saw throughout the campaign, and we've seen in its aftermath, how willing Sarah is to be the center of attention, to be in the media spotlight, etc. She's obviously VERY ambitious. I can ABSOLUTELY see her heading to Texas for that conference because it was important to HER. Should her family have come first? Yeah, but by all accounts, the kids were more or less left to their own devices anyway, so I find it hard to believe a pregnant or recently delivered Bristol would stop Sarah from giving her speech.

So in this theory, Sarah would have gone to Texas to give her speech. If Bristol had already given birth either at home or elsewhere, then perhaps the plan all along was for Sarah to pretend to go into labor in Texas and rush back to Alaska.

I can't see Sarah Palin thinking far enough ahead to see that others would perceive that as being reckless with "her" unborn child's health. After all, this is the same woman who didn't think that anyone would be bothered by her giving a TV interview in front of turkeys being slaughtered with blood gushing everywhere. She doesn't appear to consider what others might think. That would be crucial to her believing that she could pull off a fake pregnancy.

Pretending to go into labor in Texas and then rushing back to Alaska in such a dramatic fashion would likely have appealed to Sarah because she probably thought she could play it as her being such a tough woman, able to put duty above all else, etc. And she probably knew that it would make a good story in the press and would spotlight her appearance at the convention, even possibly taking press away from others in attendance.

If her rushing back to Alaska was NOT planned, then either Bristol was in labor OR Bristol had already had Trig, and he was in need of treatment for jaundice. Either way, she needed to get home, and claiming that she was in labor was an easy way to get out of the rest of the conference. Most people, men in particular, aren't going to stop a woman and ask a bunch of questions if she says she needs to leave because she's in labor.

She then went home and claimed Trig at the hospital. In a small hospital in a small, rural town, could that be covered up? You betcha. Would it be risky? Sure, but we're also talking about the Governor's family, a national award-winning doctor, and a hospital with a board of directors comprised mainly of people from her church. How many nurses or staff working in a small rural hospital in that kind of situation would press the issue if they noticed something unusual? Besides, if a nurse or other hospital staff person did notice something unusual, they wouldn't have been able to reveal it to others outside of the hospital system without violating HIPPA.

Would Bristol have been a willing participant in all of this? Perhaps. The knowledge that the baby had Down Syndrome could have scared her enough to go along with whatever her parents wanted to do. Or perhaps they enticed her in some other way. "This baby is going to have so many problems. You can't possibly take care of him. You're young. You'll have other kids. We'll raise this one as our child, and you can marry your boyfriend and go on to have other, healthy children." Perhaps they gave in and offered to let her marry Levi and make more babies with him, but they didn't anticipate her turning around and getting pregnant again right away.

I know it's kind of out there, but all of it makes much more sense to me than the idea that Sarah Palin concealed her own pregnancy so well, took such risks with her child's health, and then went out of her way to avoid doing ANYTHING that would easily and convincingly prove that she is in fact his biological mother.


Palin Pregnancy Truth said...

I do not think producing a full term baby is proof that Bristol is not the mother. If Sarah is as set as she is in running in 2012, she knows that she has to produce a baby. They could easily have set up an adoption for December. Palin's political career depends on it.

Sarah Palin flaunts her children around like props. She lets Piper give radio interviews by herself. If Bristol is really pregnant the media would love to have pictures and I'm surprised Palin isn't eager to oblige. Palin would take any opportunity to get in the news. The fact that we haven't seen ONE clear picture of Bristol pregnant suggests that something is up.

Anonymous said...

To BG,

I don't have any clue whether Trig is full term or not. I don't recall making any such post reaching a conclusion or even speculating on that. Trig may be either full term or somewhat premature. One can't tell from announced birth weight or not. And all those pronouncements are hearsay, anyway.

But it is accurate that we can't accurately date Trig's birth based on his apparent size in various pictures because we lack sufficient evidence to do so. His actual birth date is no later than April 18, since we have a picture of Trig pegged to that date, and the best conclusion we can draw from the scope of available evidence is that Trig was born on or around that date, premature or full term. We might be wrong about that for any of the reasons other posters have postulated.

The theory that Willow is Trig's mother is based on the lack of evidence excluding her and the obvious photographic evidence from 2007 that shows by her physical development that she is capable of having a child. Young teens do have sex, Willow had a boyfriend (per various reliable accounts), and it clear from other evidence that the Palin kids were not particularly well supervised. (Of course, pregnancies happen anyway -- it only takes a few minutes.)

So this theory may be validated or discredited some day. If it's right, I imagine at least some of the readers will think 'Wow, good call Dangerous.' But it's not crazy nor wild speculation, just a possible interpretation of the facts we would all be wise not to ignore simply because it is uncomfortable to contemplate. Can you think of a better reason for SP to fake a pregnancy that was so obviously concocted?


Anonymous said...

I do think the nay-sayers who post to this site (those who say Sarah must be Trig's mother) are secret Palin supporters who feign disliking her (to increase their credibility) and wish to undermine the serious purpose of this blog. They seldom address the overwhelming evidence that Palin is lying (the wild ride from Texas, Sarah's amazingly slender figure at seven months in most photos, etc.). That's their right, of course; but the newbies to this site should be aware that pro-Palin trolls are lurking about and want to throw sand in your eyes.

BG said...

The "full term" comment was re: your statement about whether or not Bristol would produce a "full term" baby in December; not about Trig.

As far as the Willow theory goes, well, if there is one thing I have learned about this situation it is that there is not enough evidence to prove ANY scenario and not enough evidence to rule any out either.

lilybart said...

This baby is her claim to fame with the radical Christians and so it follows that this secret is the most important thing to palin.

If it were all true WHY not just prove it? Does she not know about these rumors that persist? Doesn't her family know? Why won't someone just prove it.

All we need is the amnio results document or some other simple thing.

I understand when people don't want to even give these questions any weight, but really, the best evidence that the kid is not hers is the refusal to provide proof.

Anonymous said...

OpEdNews Top 10 Clues in the "Who is Trig's Mother" Mystery

There is a photo of Trig labelled 3 days old. SP is in red. This photo looks like it was taken in the hospital, and taken possibly the same day as the one with the grandparents.

Wasn't Trig only in the hospital for 1 day? This doesn't look like the Palin house because of the wallboard seam in the background. Generally houses don't have walls like that, unless it is in the basement; maybe it's SP's office. If it is the hospital, and Trig is back there on the 3rd day, he doesn't look jaundiced.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the photo of Trig at 3 days, it is possible he is jaundiced. And also in the picture of him at 5 days old.

rachel said...

I saw this on a midwife's blog and it made me think of this-- she mentions how big a woman gets in her 3rd pregnancy, which supports the Bristol as mom theory.

History Chasers said...

Would you please publish my comment from yesterday? I asked you if you had watched Greta's interview with Gov.Palin filmed in March. Sarah Palin was visably pregnant then. She was asked if the baby's sex was known and she answered "Yes,it's a boy."

This makes all your wild speculations and theories moot.

Give it up.

wayofpeace said...


Sarah Palin leaves out Bristol's "bundle of joy" on things she is thankful for. by Chad Rubel

In the Palin turkey video, now making its way worldwide, the governor is asked the traditional question asked this time of year, "What is it that you're thankful for this year?"

"So thankful for the health and happiness of my family, that my son's Striker brigade is safe over there in Iraq, relatively safe, and school's going well for the kids, and Trig is happy and healthy, just very thankful for the health and happiness of my family."

So what's missing from this picture?

Well, if you were on the Christmas card list for the Palins this year, you would hear about what happened to the family: Trig was born, Track went off to Iraq, Mom ran for vice president, and of course, Bristol got pregnant and she is going to marry Levi.

Wait, Palin never mentioned that last part, did she? Bristol was lumped in with "school's going well for the kids" along with Willow and Piper. Wouldn't Mom have said "we're happy for our daughter, soon to give birth, and for our new incoming son-in-law"? After all, Bristol would be really close to being 8 months pregnant at this point, something that might be obvious when she comes into a room.

In a household that took the news well that a teenage girl was pregnant and going to marry the father, you would think that might be worth mentioning. True, there might be some denial for a woman of Sarah Palin's age to be a grandmother. But for a person who talks about her children a lot, it seems a rather glaring omission not to mention her ever-expanding pregnant teenage daughter close to giving birth.

Unless, of course, Bristol's pregnancy isn't true.

Alex said...


You told the birth story exactly as I believed it happened. Mainly, because it all fits. It fits the facts. It fits SP's need for attention, her disregard for the needs of others, and how teenagers act. The only piece that still makes no sense to me is why SP would attempt this coverup over a teen pregnancy, which seems to be very commonplace and accepted in Alaska and in fundamentalist churches. However, as Annie says, if it's a way SP could garner attention and be seen as pro-life, family-values oriented, and the supreme wonder woman-- then yes, that does make sense.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to today's posters for answering my question about why the teens aren't talking. I think you guys are right in saying that there are probably SO VERY FEW people who know, that it's a rural community, the hospital's board members are also her church members, etc. That definitely makes sense.

I think you're also right that Sarah probably didn't even know about Bristol's pregnancy until 7 months or she would have faked it sooner.

And, like several of you have said....adopting a teen's child isn't really all that unusual; it's only unusual in this case b/c the family was thrust into the national spotlight and had no idea that their actions from a few months before would be under national scrutiny.

I, too, believe that it's going to be pretty interesting in December to see if they produce a baby (adopted?) or what. "What a tangled web we weave" Scary.

GraceR said...

There's a picture in Newsweek this week of Bristol in a dressing room having her hair done at SNL in mid-October. She is sitting in a chair in the background but clearly looks pregnant from what I can tell.

Anonymous said...

From adn, Secrets Out, Palin Pregnant, 03/06/08:

'Palin said she's not aiming to take any time off from her job as governor, assuming all goes well with the pregnancy. She said when she had Piper -- Palin was mayor of Wasilla at the time -- the baby was born on a Monday and she returned to the office on Tuesday.'

Piper born on Monday, SP back at work Tuesday? Really?

Anonymous said...

Here is something I don't think anyone has noticed yet. One of the mothers who gave birth at Mat-Su on April 18th is quoted as saying,

"We never saw Sarah before the delivery," said Davison. "I did see her a couple of days after and she didn't look like someone who'd just had a baby… I was the one pacing around trying to induce labor," said Krueger. "We saw Todd in the hall, not Sarah."

If it were Sarah in labor, her husband most likely would have been in the room with her, not pacing the halls. But if it were his daughter in labor, very likely he would be in the hall, and Sarah would be inside with her daughter.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if this link to pictures of Trig have been on this site. They are dated. Maybe there are experts out there who would comment as to his size vs. age.


Anonymous said...

I find it hard to believe that SP returned to her mayoral office the day after giving birth to Piper.

However, it's my understanding that the bulk of actual work during her tenure as mayor was done by a city manager. And technically, her statement would be truthful if by "return to the office" she meant that she stopped by to show off the baby and just check in. I "returned to the office" three weeks after my daughter was born, but it was just to show her off while we were in the neighborhood dropping off some daycare paperwork.


Diana said...

So after looking at all of the Feb., March, April question comes to mind. Did she wear scarves during her previous pregnancy's? If not then why this she hiding behind scarves before she admitted to being pregnant? She didn't tell anyone until March...but yet...she is hiding behind scarves in Feburary. What's your take on that. Do we have photos of other photos when she is pregnant or even not pregnant...yet wearing scarves in every picture where her stomach might be exposed?

Anonymous said...

Why cover up bp's teen pregnancy? Simple. To preserve her chance at vp. During her march interviews in los angeles, it is clear there was already buzz about her being the runningmate. Also several posts back audrey found an article where in 2007 her aide said to a reporter oh one minute she's attending to piper and the next she's on the phone with vp cheney. We know that neocon bill kristol really pushed her for vp. She was the neocons wet dream- sexy and dumb as a rock - a hot tabula rasa. Even though she wasn't vetted hard enough by the mccain camp doesn't mean the cheney/kristol crowd wasn't pumping her up for the possibility. But she knew an unwed pregnant daughter would kill the deal. And remember that according to most reports the palins told the mccain camp bp was pregnant AFTER she was offered the job. Either bp is not really pregnant and they're taking their chances because it was worth it to kill the trig story or bp really is pregnant and people were going to figure it out anyway and she already had the job so it was not the same concern. My two cents. Mom of one, esq.

Anonymous said...

To History Chasers, please provide a link to the Greta interview with a "pregnant" Sarah. As we have been over many times on this blog, a padded belly is not proof of a pregnancy. To anonymous.... as far as Sarah announcing the pregnancy at seven months because she may not have known about Bristol's pregnancy sooner, I think she did know sooner but was undecided about what to do with the baby - this was the interim period in which she started wearing all of those scarves. Finally, though I do think it is possible to bounce back into shape very quickly postpartum, I think it is fairly impossible for any woman of average size to hide a 5th pregnancy until 7 months, from anyone, let alone from family and those that work closely with her - !!

jeanie said...

To anonymous at 6:12. I noticed that one, too. For those who want to dig further, the date of Piper's birth was March 19, 2001 - according to that same interview.

jeanie said...


Regarding anonymous at 6:12 again - whether she did go back to work the day after Piper was born or not, she was clearly setting the stage for an easy recovery!

Anonymous said...

"History Chaser":

Twice now you've mentioned a Greta (Van Susteren) interview of Sarah Palin filmed last March -- without giving a link.

Link, please.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Palin would be so desperate to save face politically she would have Bristol induced on December 18th, if Bristol is pregnant.

Postergirl said...

Hmmm, Anonymous at 6:12 posted that Palin from a paper that said when Piper was born, Palin returned to work the next day. That should be something to look into. Considering her lies about so many things, I'd be curious if she really did go back to work the day after Piper was born. Kudos to you for bringing that up!

Anonymous said...

I just love the feeble attempts by posters such as 'History Chasers' who cite one piece of evidence and immediately say that is conclusive and that we should drop it.

An interview in March where SP 'looked' pregnant and said 'It's a boy' is conclusive? How exactly? Earlier that same month she didn't look pregnant and she could know the gender of the fetus any number of ways whether she was the mother or not. It's not even proof of an amnio since ultra-sound will usually allow gender identification.

We all know that SP 'looked' pregnant in late stages for her purported pregnancy. She also didn't 'look' pregnant until after she announced that she was 7-months pregnant.

If this is the best defense the SP faithful can put up, I think we are on solid ground in concluding SP is not Trig's mother. Her shaky story never seems to get any stronger.

So the real mysteries we are trying to solve is who else could be Trig's mother and what was SP's motivation for faking. Most of us are assuming those issues are linked, but perhaps they aren't.

To BG -- I understand the confusion now about Trig vs. baby #2. You are correct that we can't be sure that baby #2 will be full term. We may be able to conclude that, however, based on the closely watched circumstances of that birth. But another series of deceptions is possible.

Even so, while it is possible that Bristol had Trig then immediately got pregnant again, that doesn't seem likely to me. How did that work? Bristol and Levi have one baby that creates massive issues. So they immediately either screw up or intentional have another one? With Bristol post-partem?

Well, anything is possible, but why then would SP fake on Bristol's first pregnancy and announce the second to the world?


Anonymous said...

In answer to Alex's question of why Sarah would risk so much to cover a teen pregnancy: Sarah was being touted by Rush Limbaugh and others as a VP possibility as early as February last year; she must have thought knowledge of her daughter's pregnancy would hurt her chances b/c her support comes from the moralistic far-right wing of the Rep party –- and in fact that might have been true. After she had been chosen as VP candidate, of course, the dynamics changed and outing her daughter's (second, if true) pregnancy became political necessary to prevent exposure of the original hoax.
Brad S

Anonymous said...

To History Chasers...

While I know you are a "Team Sarah" member (your blog is a love affair with the right).... your comment does little to "disprove" our theories. Yes, she knew the baby (whose baby?) would be a boy in March. Most folks know by 20 weeks based on a simple, routine ultrasound in the second trimester. That doesn't prove (1) that she had the baby; (2) that she didn't have the baby; (3) that she or whoever the mother was had or didn't have a CVS or Amnio; (4) nor anythning else useful to us. At most, it shows that SOMEONE got a routine, 20 week ultrasound which showed off Trig's boy bits.

And your point is?????


Anonymous said...

One more thought to History Chasers....

If your point is that Sarah "was visibly pregnant".... um, that's how you fake a pregnancy... of COURSE she was visibly pregnant at that point. If she was faking, she bought an "empathy belly" and strapped it on. The WEIRD thing is that she was NOT showing AT ALL in just the few weeks prior to that. If you want the details, go to the webpage with the pictures discussed at length by Audrey....

If you are gonna stand by your gal, at least read the evidence against her first!


Anonymous said...

to History Chasers:

Why are you so naive? Just b/c a person was "visably" (sic) pregnant, doesn't mean that she was indeed pregnant. Haven't you ever heard of prosthetic pregnant tummies? Do you think all characters in movies who are visibly pregnant are truly pregnant in real life? The fact that you think that SP's appearance as "visably" pregnant (And by the way, you spelled "visibly" wrong) means that she WAS pregnant is silly.

As many people have stated, the practice of covering up a teen's pregnancy is centuries-old, and it's not a "wild theory".

Anonymous said...

Re anonymous at 4:55 AM, Bristol is clearly pregnant. She looked pregnant in the backstage picture that Newsweek took at SNL and in the TMZ video of her getting out of the car in New York. How pregnant she is. when she is due and whether this is her first or second child are valid questions, but I clearly think she is pregnant.

Anonymous said...

History Chasers,

Yes, we know that in March Palin said, "It's a boy." And "it" was. We believe he was in someone else's womb and Sarah was wearing belly pads to appear pregnant. Her statement made no part of our belief moot. You are mistaken. -B.

Anonymous said...

In response to History Chaser:

There are LOTS of pictures taken of Sarah Palin in March 2008 in which she shows now sign of a pregancy whatsoever. The only pictures where Sarah Palin looks vaguely pregnant are taken in April 2008 - and even there, her belly "changes sizes"...

Just today, during my "usual research" on this subject, I found another new picture of Sarah, taken in March 2008, which received no attention so far:


...and see here the screenshot for the date:

Other "famous" pictures of Sarah from March 2008:

And here is how "incredibly" pregnant she looked in April 2008:

And here is how it looks like when Palin is REALLY pregnant (official picture!!):


Another topic: It's always frustrating how inconsistent and confusing her accounts about the birth are. And it's always worth to have a look at older press reports...

The Wall Street Journal reported about the birth on 24 Sept 2008:

"Gov. Palin's opted to board a jet from Dallas in April while about to deliver a child. Gov. Palin, who was eight months pregnant, says she felt a few contractions shortly before she was to give a keynote speech to an energy summit of governors in Dallas. But she says she went ahead with it after her doctor in Alaska advised her to put her feet up to rest. "I was not going to miss that speech," she says.

She rushed so quickly from the podium afterwards that Texas Gov. Rick Perry nervously asked if she was about to deliver the baby then. She made it to the airport, and gave birth hours after landing in Anchorage to Trig, who is diagnosed with Down Syndrome. "Maybe they shouldn't have let me fly, but I wasn't showing much so they didn't know," she says.

Write to Jim Carlton at"

First: When did she EVER mention again that "her doctor in Alaska advised her to put her feet up to rest" ?? I have never heard that somewhere else. So she had a "reason" to stay in Texas then, right? (strangely she didn't follow her doctor's advice - WHICH DOCTOR? - and gave the speech.


What is this quote of Sarah supposed to mean?? "Maybe they shouldn't have let me fly, but I wasn't showing much so they didn't know," she says... Is she crazy?? If she "shouldn't" have taken the flight (because her water had broken before, and contractions had started...), why did she then?? I also had never heard that quote before.


There was the theory mentioned above the Willow could be the mother of Trig. I strongly reject this theory. May I just point to this report:


The writer describes in detail the events which happened on the 16th February 2008 at the finish of the "Iron Dog Snowmachine Race", at which Todd Palin took part (he had won it before 4 times). The writer notes that the whole Palin family was there, including Willow, and excluding Track (who was in the army), and the other member of the Palin family who was absent on the 16th February 2008 was...BRISTOL.

Therefore under no circumstances can Willow be the mother of Trig...this is just a wild theory which doesn't go along with the facts, in my opinion.

(there are, by the way, no pictures of Bristol whatsoever from Autumn 2007 until the famous prom picture which was taken in late April 2008).

I will address the infamous "baby bump family picture", which was dated by the ADN to 2006, later...!

Enough for today. ;-)

Patrick and Kathleen

Anonymous said...

re BP's 12/18 due date: Let's not forget that any pregnancy and esp first time mothers can go as far as 2 weeks overdue before most OBs will induce labor. I'll leave it to others to do the math as far as possible conception dates but that's another thing to keep in mind. Mom of One, Esq.

Anonymous said...

I found it! Re: the comments about Sarah Palin going back to work right after Piper was born:

"The mayor said she had been to work Tuesday, but only to redirect e-mail and phone messages to her home."

It goes on to say that she planned to use some of her sick leave. So, she did NOT go back to work immediately after having Piper and DID in fact take at least a little time off.


Anonymous said...

Oops - in my post of earlier today, I should have said that Sarah was being touted as a VP candidate as early as February of THIS year, not LAST year. Corrected post should read:

In answer to Alex's question of why Sarah would risk so much to cover a teen pregnancy: Sarah was being touted by Rush Limbaugh and others as a VP possibility as early as February THIS year; she must have thought knowledge of her daughter's pregnancy would hurt her chances b/c her support comes from the moralistic far-right wing of the Republican party –- and in fact that might have been true. After she had been chosen as VP candidate, of course, the dynamics changed and outing her daughter's (second, if true) pregnancy became political necessary to prevent exposure of the original hoax.
Brad S

Anonymous said... will all chuckle when you see this - posted on a "pro Sarah Palin" blog:




Anonymous said...

Weighing the likelihood of two Bristol pregnancies, Dangerous asks, "Why would SP fake on Bristol's first pregnancy and announce the second to the world?"

Brad S has a good answer. Sarah's political goals favored hiding the daughter's first pregnancy but revealing the second.

On a personal rather than political level, there's also the angry mother-daughter dynamic that may underly both of the pregancies.

Mom goes to all that trouble and risk to cover for her daughter's first pregnancy. Gratitude? No, the daughter turns around and does it again!

At that point it's throw her under the bus, she's on her own now. Says Sarah, "I told her Bristol, honey, you're going to have to grow up real fast."

Certainly the mom would feel angry and maybe vengeful. Her motivation to go through the whole coverup charade again would be just about zip.

I can sympathize with both of them, actually.

-- jwc

Tina in CA said...

Anonymous said...
"History Chaser":

Twice now you've mentioned a Greta (Van Susteren) interview of Sarah Palin filmed last March -- without giving a link.

Link, please.

November 26, 2008 6:57 AM
I believe he is referring to this:

It is a FOX special "Sarah Palin, An American Woman" that was hosted by Greta.

Audrey has mentioned this video before. Especially how strange stomach sounds when she slaps it. (at 5:12)

Her face looks pregnant to me, but it does also look that way in many of her photos. She just has a pudgy face.

Tina in CA said...

The exact phrase "It's a boy" History Chasers is referring to is in segment one:

I think the other link I provided in my last post is better though.

Does anyone else see how she makes her upper lip bigger with lipstick? I think the video makes her lips look fuller, due to all of that lipstick... because later the big lip disppears.

Watch the videos, you'll see what I mean.

Alex said...

Thanks, Brad S, for making the rationale clear on the risk for covering pregnancy. That so fits what we've seen of SP's ego. That she'd cover up anything to further her political career. I use the term "political" loosely, because the woman is so narcissistic and ego-driven, she seems less a politician to me than a delusional media construction. More Paris Hilton than Ted Stevens.

Anonymous said...


That's kind of a cute photo of Trig (re: the Sarah letter) but I truly wonder how many hours her interns spending handwriting those letters! A typed message and an "SP" signature stamp would save so much time!

And in case SP DID write that, where does she find the time?? (note: knowing a number of people who have worked for US senators and state governors, I don't believe for a second she wrote that herself)

Anonymous said...

To History Chaser and others:
I did a post about that Greta V. documentary on 11/19 in the "Truth or Lie" section and got very little response, so I hope it is OK to re-post it here, with the link to the video, now that you, my online buddies, are getting more interested in it. Here is my old post and one more comment at the end:

"I just recalled something. I had almost forgotten it until some recent posts reminded me of the importance of body language and what people DON'T say.

It's from that special bio about SP that I saw on FOX in early September.The narrator (Greta Van S.) states it was taped in April, prior to the April 18 birth.
I found a YouTube of it in 5 parts:

In Part 4 (about 4:03), SP, Todd & Piper are in the kitchen. SP is checking her BlackBerry.

SP: "Todd, did Bristol call you?"(These are the words I suddenly remembered.)
TP: (Barely audible; had to replay it many times to catch it.) "Um, I haven't talked to her for a couple hours."
SP: (Mumbles something about how she almost forgot about dinner.)

To me, they sound like grandparents waiting for regular follow-up calls from their daughter about something very important. Labor pains, maybe?

TP and SP seem nervous. At one point (about 6:32), an off-camera male voice asks, "Do you know what it is?' and SP turns to the camera with a big smile and says, "Boy." Just that one word, very unlike the chatty SP but very much like an excited grandmother. It's also the way you talk to people when you have something else to do. I also notice another off-camera voice picks up on their impatience and tells them it will only be another moment and they'll be done. And Todd offers a crew member a hamburger (just one) "before you go."

I'm wondering if Trig was about to be born that same day the video was being shot. We know it was in April, perhaps as early as April 1. Exact date of that vido could explain a lot. -- FishEye

November 19, 2008 8:54 PM"

P.S. I went back and looked at the video and in that same segment, still around 4:03, you can see a phone with an attached digital screen of some sort, on the counter over Piper's left shoulder as she watches TV. If somebody has some CSI-type software to bring that screen into focus, it probably shows the day and date accurately. I am DYING to find out. --FishEye

Anonymous said...

glad I can edit... my last post should read:
"how many hours her interns SPEND handwriting those letters"

(sorry for another superfluous comment but I had to correct!)

Audrey said...

Just wanted to clarify a couple of things.

First the filmmaker's name is Elan Frank. NOT Frank Elan. I have gotten it wrong several times, and I apologize. I believe I have corrected it everywhere I had it wrong on the website but can't do that on the blog.

Elan Frank filmed Gov. Palin in April 2008. I am not sure of the exact dates. HOWEVER, one of the days was April 8th. We know this because of a news conference that he mentions attending with her. There is video of her which matches other press coverage. We also know that he filmed her for either three or four days. (Two different sources give the two different numbers.) If he filmed her for four days and April 8th was the last day, then it would be April 5th - 8th. If April 8th was the first day, then April 8th - 11th.

Palin assumed at the time the video was shot that it would not be viewed for months. It's been suggested by myself and others who are skeptical of the pregnancy story that she minimized the pregnancy for the video shoot to look better. There is simply no way to correlate the size of her belly in some of the Frank footage to, for example, the photo which has been widely published in which she's being interviewed by Andrea Gusty on the last day of the Alaska Legislative Session, which would have been mere days later.

When she was nominated for VP, Frank sold some of the footage to Fox. I have not been able to determine if they bought all of the footage... which could have been many hours... or just some edited material.

Fox used this footage to produce the Greta Van Sustern videos, all of which are linked on this page of my website. However, there is much archival footage of Gov. Palin which was not shot by Frank as well in these videos.

Anonymous said...

I saw the Greta show with a very pregnant-appearing Palin. I believe that she was wearing a fake pregnant belly under her clothing. It was a bit weird how she suddenly sits down and bears this huge belly that was never visible again! Palin was simply trying to save her rebel teenage pregnant daughter from "ruining her life".

The reason I feel this way, is because I saw the video of her walking from the Govenors mansion to her office while being interviewed - guess she was 7 months pregnant at the time. She was as skinny as a rail. Also, there is a photo of her kneeling next to a moose--where she was approx 6 months pregnant. Apparently, she was suppose to climb a mountain that day. Now, why would a nearly third term woman carrying a high risk pregnancy think about climbing a mountain.

Either she faked a pregancy -or- she was hoping to miscarry following risky behavior. It still is quite possible that the latter is true. She does not believe in abortion, yet finds her self pregnant with a DS baby as she approaches "the high point" of her career.

Anonymous said...

Check out these stories about how, when, and by whom Sarah Palin was vetted and promoted for a possible VP role:


A great deal of time and energy was apparently spent last year in Alaska by pundits from National Review and The Weekly Standard visiting, and discussing with Sarah, how to burnish her image and "street cred" with the base.

What if a Down Syndrome baby was suggested as an image-burnishing major asset?

And, indeed, many right wing pundits later celebrated Palin's Down Syndrome motherhood as the central fact of her life and candidacy.

I find it hard to believe that Sarah conveniently conceived the perfect campaign prop right after consulting (in Alaska) with Bill Kristol, Dick Morris, Fred Barnes, etc. (Her chances of naturally conceiving such a child is about 1 in 40.)

And despite all the circumstantial evidence for Bristol's earlier pregnancy, her conceiving of Trig would have been even more improbably convenient(odds against a girl of her age conceiving a Down syndrome baby are vanishly small, something like 1 in 1000).

So, what if neither Bristol nor Sarah is the mother of Trig?

What if Trig was some sort of "Operation Rescue" foundling adopted as a political prop to give Sarah street cred with fundies such as Franklin Graham, who allegedly helped push her candidacy on McCain?

Palin might have been particularly receptive to this ploy since she had previously lost an election in Alaska to a woman deemed to have more impressive right-to-life credentials than Sarah.

What do you think?

Anonymous said...

What if Trig was some sort of "Operation Rescue" foundling adopted as a political prop to give Sarah street cred with fundies such as Franklin Graham, who allegedly helped push her candidacy on McCain?

Anonymous said...

I think caring for a Down's syndrome person for the rest of your life is a pretty high price to pay for a political prop, and I'm not inclined to believe that Trig is anything but a blood relation of some kind.

I do want the true story on what appears to be a fake pregnancy, but that's a separate question.

I have to respect the Palins for raising him.


Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at 8:16 p.m. -- I find it very hard to believe that SP would have adopted a DS baby, and pretended it was her natural child. She could have gotten as much, or more, credit with pro-lifers for adopting a DS child, and proclaiming the fact.

I confess that I tend to lean towards the Trig-is-Sarah's theory, and am appalled at her risky behavior. The woman is nuts.

Anonymous said...

Re the Nov 26, 8:16 PM Anonymous post asking if Trig might be a foundling child of someone unrelated to the Palins that Sarah adopted to use as a political prop: sounds way to risky to me.

But the poster mentions the odds of Bristol having a Down Syndrome baby as being very remote - well, not quite as remote as you might think. The odds increase for very young mothers. It's been estimated that Bristol's odds would be about that of a 35-year-old woman. (I've looked at some of the studies charting DS risk by age, and that estimate seems about right.)

I'd like to raise a slightly different question. What if Trig was born, not with DS, but fetal alcohol syndrome? If Bristol is the mother, then there seems to be photographic evidence that she and her friends used alcohol a great deal (see various Facebook pics).

Can the medical folks reading this give feedback on whether Trig's features are definitely those of a DS baby vs. a FAS baby? The reason Sarah would not want FAS to be known about are pretty obvious if she is going to claim to be the mother - and if Trig's condition is FAS, then claiming DS was a brilliant stroke on Sarah's part - any appearance anomalies of Trig's due to FAS could be attributed to DS, plus Sarah would reap the benefits of "choosing" to bear a DS baby.
Brad S

Anonymous said...

For every kudo Sarah got from a social conservative for having a DS baby, I suspect she got a demerit from another social conservative for not paying more attention to her baby with special needs. So the possibility of being chosen as the VP candidate may have motivated her to hide her child's pregnancy, but I don't think even she would fake a pregnancy to adopt an unrelated DS baby.

Her most likely motive was to cover for someone, not to become the mother of a DS child. If Trig is not Bristol's baby, I think he is still related to Sarah. (My personal runners-up are a girlfriend of Track or Sarah's sister Molly.)

Now that Audrey showed that THE prom photo was after Trig's birth, I know of no reason to rule out Bristol -- other than her mother's claim that she was 5 mos. pregnant at the RNC and Sherry Johnston's saying the baby is due Dec. 18. We will know more on those soon.

Am I forgetting anything else that would really rule out Bristol as the mother? I don't think so. (I recall someone commenting that she saw Bristol before April 18 and she wasn't pregnant, but I don't think that comment was ever verified and could have been a troll.)

Similarly, is there anything that really rules out Sarah's pregnancy being faked, that proves she gave birth to Trig? I don't think so. The Nov. 3 medical statement comes closest but is not convincing.

Anything is possible, but Trig being Bristol's baby is still most likely and not disproved. -B.

Anonymous said...

Looking at the video of the finish of the IronDog race, you can see Sarah, Willow, and Piper hugging Todd. During that time Willow was waving to someone to come join them. Do you suppose that was Bristol who was avoiding cameras in February?

sandra in oregon

Anonymous said...

To fisheye on Nov 26 / 7:24 PM: Thanks a lot for bringing up those videos (Fox documentaries) again – I have looked at them once again and now find them more interesting than ever. This “it’s a boy” conversation is very strange indeed. It’s a shame that we don’t have the complete footage which was shot by Elan Frank. It would be incredibly interesting to see the “uncut” footage.

Apart from the points that you mention in your posting, I noticed something else: At the end of the same video, at 7:05, Sarah explains that she was back at work the day after Piper was born back in 2001 – on the 20 March (Piper was born on the 19 March). Link to the video again:

However, we know now that this is WRONG. As it was mentioned by Annie further above in this thread, Sarah Palin did just go to the office the next day “to redirect e-mail and phone messages to her home”, and the took at least some time off. Source:

Therefore her statement is just a plain lie (anyone surprised?) – she deliberately tries to suggest that she was back to work again the day after the birth of Piper “full time”. And now comes the interesting part - just afterwards in this video Sarah explains why she is telling us all this: “If all goes well, I will do the same thing this time.” (at 7:22)

So she prepares her audience already for a quick return to her office, and at the same time clearly lies about her actions in the past after the birth of Piper. She distorts the facts. It doesn’t surprise me at all…


Last point: Somebody said here that Sarah looked incredibly pregnant in this footage. REALLY?

In this video…

…the narrator explains that this “exclusive footage” was shot in April 2008, and at the same time of the narration, in 5:06, Sarah is slapping her belly, and the camera gets a great shot of her stomach. I do not see a heavily pregnant woman here in this scene! I have made a screenshot of this moment, judge for yourself:


Gobbler said...

Okay, there are 76 comments already, but I've got one more question.

In every account I've read, it's always suggested Sarah Palin drove herself from the Anchorage airport to the Mat-Su Hospital in the middle of the night. How is it that a state governor, with a change in planes in Seattle, on her way to give birth, cannot get someone to pick her up at the airport? If that's not the case, who did pick her up?

Anonymous said...

Don't you think that Sarah would have made more points by openly adopting a DS baby? Many people in the pro-life community would be extremely impressed by that.

I think Annie's scenario is impressive. It is almost exactly the one I imagined. A routine late-term ultrasound would have given the sex as well as evidence of the DS (which you can see on an ultrasound).

It is possible that the only people privy to SPs deception plans were her husband, her daughter, her daughter's boyfriend, her doctor, and her sister (clearly her parents didn't know).

There must have been an ultrasound technician somewhere, and there must be time-stamped records of an ultrasound somewhere.

It is possible that the technician might not have had any idea who his or her client really was, but the instance of DS babies in the general population of small-town Alaska in February or March must be relatively small.

Anonymous said...

As the biological mother of a "special needs" child myself, I can tell you that adoptive parents of these children do not have the same "respect" in our community as those of us who had no choice. (Most of us never knew until delivery or later that our children were going to be "special.")

Among the right-to-lifers, choosing personally not to abort one's own DS child also carries much more moral weight than a parent who adopts. It's an emotional point, to be sure, but a real one.

I doubt that an adoption of a "foundling" is any riskier than pretending your daughter's child is your own. There would be about the same number of people in the chain of secrecy.

And I seriously doubt that Sarah Palin will personally be "raising" this child once the political advantages fade. There are too many possibilities for well-off families to send these children away for special education --severely handicapped children in Alaska are often sent off to the lower 48 states because special ed in the state is in so poor.

And no, fetal alcohol syndrome doesn't look like Down Syndrome. The two are easily differentiated. Drinking and drug use have nothing to do with Down Syndrome, BTW.

Bristol's chance (even Sarah's chance) of naturally having a Down Syndrome child at such a politically opportune time is negligible. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but...

Postergirl said...

After having seen the Elan video, photos from the association meeting where her water broke, etc., I'm beginning to think Sarah Palin really was pregnant. I think I'm starting to lean toward the "she is Trig's mom but completely nuts' scenario. The whole speech in Texas, getting on the plane, bypassing hospitals in Texas, Seattle and Anchorage, says to me she was hoping to miscarry. She DOES look pregnant and yes I know she could have been wearing a prosthetic but... I don't know. A thin, small woman doesn't always get that big and she never reached months of pregnancy. Look, I think the woman is frightening, and thank god she isn't VP! AND, I hope she goes away and we never hear about her again. But I'm less convinced that she isn't Trig's true mom than I used to be. However, it's just weird. My biggest thing is the photo of Sarah where she is definitely looking pregnant in the interview with an Alaskan woman reporter in Anchorage (I don't have the link handy), and the photos from Texas when she gave her speech. She looks WAY pregnant in the photo with the reporter, but not as much in Texas. What was the date of the interview with the CBS affiliate (or maybe it was NBC)?

Anonymous said...

To Gobbler,

I believe that Todd was with Sarah and that he would have driven her to that airport etc.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 8:49 pm 11/27 says:

"Bristol's chance (even Sarah's chance) of naturally having a Down Syndrome child at such a politically opportune time is negligible. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but..."

That point is made in support of the idea that Trig is likely an unrelated child adopted for political gain. I think that's a misapplication of statistical reasoning to the chaos of history. A skilled politician may exploit any given situation for maximum gain. Rudy Giuliani did not conspire to bring about the 9/11 attacks but his political fortunes rose in the aftermath because of his skillful response. Sarah Palin did not reveal that the expected baby would be a special needs child until after his birth - suggesting to me that she saw a lemon and made lemonade. (That's not to say she did not know in advance - maybe she did, maybe she didn't - but she did not focus on how to exploit the situation until after the great risks associated with the birth had passed.)
Brad S

Anonymous said...

Something caught my attention. Look at Piper in this video. This Greta video is March 2008...right?? She pats her stomach and says she didn't really mean to hide her pregnancy?? But look at Piper....she looks really young in that video...vs photos of her in April?? or even 6 months later. I don't get how she can look so young in that video. Also the pat on the pregnant stomach seems like an attempt to prove that...hey yes...I am pregnant...but I have never heard a pregnant stomach sound like that when patted. Look at about 6 to 6 1/2 minutes into the video. Do you have other pictures of Piper in March/April?

Tina in CA said...

I think in the screen shot you provided, you missed the best belly shot in the video. It's at the 5:11 mark. That's when she plays the drums on her stomach and it sounds like a waterbed.

Get a clear screen shot of that one for us.

hrh said...

Posted a comment here a few days ago and it has not appeared. Will try again.

I have noticed no one has mentioned Palin's trip FROM Alaska to Texas. Surely, the papers and tv stations were reporting (and re-reporting ad nausema!) that the governor was in her last trimester and due to deliver shortly. Yet, no one, especially airline personnel, at the Anchorage (or Juneau) airport noticed that a very pregnant woman, (the governor, her very brash, attention-getting self!) was boarding a flight. What airline would assume the liability and responsibility for this?

Mary G. said...

Just a note on the Down Syndrome question and maternal age, because some people seem to think this is near-conclusive proof that Palin is Trig's mother: It is NOT impossible for a woman in her forties to conceive, and it is NOT impossible for a teenaged mother to bear a child with Down Syndrome. Just because one age group has a "greater" likelihood, does not exclude either possiblity.
Mary G. (ps I think I wrote a comment the other day and it has not appeared... it's probably stale now!)

Marcy said...

Picking up on Anonymous @10:08 on Nov. 27, "Sarah's sister Molly" makes a logical addition to the list of possible mothers-of-Trig. And that poster also says, "Trig being Bristol's baby is still most likely and not disproved." I agree with both statements.

I would like to add an observation, based on nearly 70 years of watching people screw things up. What people have done in the past, they will do again. What has Sarah Palin done in the past? This possibly criminal mystery of Trig's birth isn't a new thing: this behavior was foreshadowed by her previous actions. Troopergate? When she and all her extended family broke multiple laws, trying to get Mike Wooten fired? Why? To make Molly happy.

If Sarah Palin was willing to endanger her own political career, breaking laws, to gratify her younger sister, what else might she be willing to do for that sister? Fake a pregnancy for a Down's syndrome baby that Molly couldn't afford?

If there's ever any reliable proof that Bristol is not Trig's mother, then maybe there is old footage or old photos of Molly pregnant at the appropriate time. This entire family seems to be pathological: I thank God that Sarah Palin is not headed for the White House. Giving thanks, grammy

wayofpeace said...

thanks HRH for that observation!

you're right:

if this is the ALASKAN AIRLINES and they are flying their very pregnant governor; how can this not become a newsworthy story? or a huge concern for them?

everything about this story violates common sense and proper conduct / protocols, medical and otherwise.

no wonder so many of us are compelled to pursue the flaws and bring the truth into the open.

and for this we thank you, audrey!

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Audrey, Patrick and others, for the updates on the Frank tape, the screen shots etc.

Greta Van Susteren herself said the show was taped in April, and we know (from Audrey's ever-patient repetition) that FOX included some of Elan Frank's April 5-11 footage in it, so I am more inclined than ever to say that Bristol gave birth a week or so before SP did the Texas two-step.

A slightly earlier date of birth would go a long way to explain BP's non-puffiness in the April 25 prom photo. She is young enough to have bounced back like that. An earlier date would also bolster my idea that BP went into labor while the documentary was being filmed. -- FishEye

Anonymous said...

to hrh: early on there was a statement from Alaska Airlines that they had no restrictions on the transport of pregnant women. Because of the rural nature of the state, it is often necessary for women to travel at full term.

sandra in oregon

Ellie said...

In regards to her patting her stomach, wouldn't an empathy belly be just foam and thus no noise?

Anonymous said...

To Tina in CA, Nov 28, 12:34

You are correct, the reason why I posted this screenshot requires further explanation. I am aware of the fact that in the next scene in this video, Sarah is shown sitting in her office with a larger belly, "tapping on it"...

However, I want put forward the suggestion that the screenshot I have posted, which shows Sarah at home in April 2008, shows her REAL belly at this time. The scene where she is sitting in her chair in the office DOES NOT. Like in a few other pictures, she apparently wears an "empathy suit" or a comparable device. Sounds crazy?? The inconsistencies in her belly size on the pictures which are in the public domain from March and April 2008 are obvious.

I have summarised my position regarding the screenshot from April 2008 I had posted (the one which you are referring to), HERE:

I know that it's difficult to accept for many people that Sarah Palin actively deceived the public. However, if you take into account that Sarah Palin has actually a highly problematic personality and LIED about MANY ISSUES during the last months, the whole scenario becomes believable.

And the full truth will come out sooner or later...


Anonymous said...

To fisheye, hrh and others:


It's fully justified to ask why the pregnancy could have been overlooked by the airline staff during the flight TO TEXAS (to the Republican Governor's Conference on 17 April 2008).

But you would be EVEN MORE surprised if you took a look at Sarah's complete air travel during the two months before Trig's birth on 18 April 2008.

Fortunately, this website has done some digging:

They found out:

"Sarah Palin ignored the advice not to make plane trips during her third trimester, not once or twice, but at least eleven times. Looking through newspaper articles, it was easy to find the dates that Sarah Palin showed up in different places, but difficult to know exactly which day she traveled there. The dates may be off by one or two days. Based on newspaper articles, these are the trips that Palin took after she was 6 1/2 months pregnant.

Circa Feb. 23: flys from Anchorage to Washington D.C., 3370 miles
Circa Feb 26: flys from Washington D.C. to Anchorage,3370 miles
Circa March 2: flys from Anchorage to Los Angeles, 2302 miles
Circa March 5: flys from Los Angeles to Anchorage, 2302 miles
Circa March 7: flys from Anchorage to Fairbanks, 360 miles
Circa March 9: flys from Fairbanks to Anchorage, 360 miles
Circa March 11: flys from Anchorage to Juneau,573 miles
Circa March 14: flys from Juneau to Anchorage, 573 miles
Circa March 27: flys from Anchorage to Juneau, 573 miles
Circa April 15: flys from Juneau to Dallas, 2482 miles
April 17: flys from Dallas to Anchorage, 3051 miles

In just under two months, Palin made eleven trips, racking up over 18,000 miles."

Pretty impressive list for a highly pregnant woman, isn't it?


Anonymous said...

Also, please add Sarah's sister Heather Bruce as another possible mom for Trig. Heather has "rearranged her life" (Sarah's words) to care for her autistic child. Perhaps Heather was overwhelmed at the thought of another special needs child and Sarah, who we know would never back down from any challenge, stepped up to raise Trig as her own.

I think we will see Trig's birth certificate as soon as enough time has passed for the adoption to be legal in Alaska. Does anyone know how long an adoption takes in Alaska?

It doesn't surprise me that no one in Alaska is coming forward with the "real" story. If I knew the truth, I would be afraid to cross this power-hungry, narcistic woman.

Ohio mom

Sandy said...


I am unable to look at many of your photos because the url is truncated. I keep getting the "Flickr:Page not found" message. As Audrey has previously requested, please go to to have these long links shortened.

Tina in CA said...

Your point is well taken. I see where you're going with that line of thought.

I've taken a good look at all of the pictures you have posted on your Flickr account. Very good job, by the way. I see so many pictures of Sarah when she wasn't supposed to be pregnant looking more pregnant than when she WAS supposed to be. (did that make sense?)

Anyway, between you and Audrey, something is certainly going to be uncovered.

Good work in the search for the truth.

Anonymous said...

I am nearly 5 months pregnant with my second child.

I am fit, fairly thin, have a small frame and think I'm probably built pretty much the same as SP.

I am showing. No two ways about it. People who don't know me can tell without the slightest hesitation or doubt. This wasn't the case a few weeks ago but it just is now. I couldn't hide it or suck it in if I tried. It just doesn't work that way.

I can't imagine how it would be possible for me to hide it for another 8 weeks plus unless I actually got out of town. There's only one way for this baby to go - outwards. If I were a bigger woman to start with, maybe.

I don't believe any of the story but the part where her colleagues can only tell at 7 months is total BS. In my opinion.

Anonymous said...

I just saw the photo that Patrick posted of the card Sarah sent to a supporter --

Don't you think it's really odd that Van Palin is used almost like a joint last name, like Van Flein (Sarah's personal attorney) or Van Sustern (like Greta who interviewed Sarah in April)? The "halo" above Trig's head also uses the letters VP in it, not TP for Trig Palin. So is the word Van more meaningful than just a play on the name Van Halen?

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree with FishEye about Bristol's lack of puffiness after possibly giving birth as many, many women (including myself) do not experience puffiness. They leave the hospital after giving birth in pretty good form. Especially if you are young and fit.

jeanie said...

Watching the Greta Van Susteren interview makes me feel sad for Piper. What do we see of her here?

Watching TV in the background.

Answering 'prompt' questions from her mom -

SP: What is a governor?
Piper: Um, I don't know.

SP: Ok, tell me, what do you want to be when you grow up?
Piper: A babysitter! (odd answer?!)

SP: What do you see me doing every day?
Piper: Working on the computer

SP: (exasperated) Accomplishing what, though? What am I doing on the computer?
Piper: --unintelligible--

Showing her mother a story she wrote - which has a picture of the disney channel and someone with girlfriend.

I think she's been a prop already for a long time...

Anonymous said...

This is a comment on the medical letter written by Cathy Baldwin Johnson: has anyone ever brought up the error in the birth year? It states 2000 as the year Piper was born, whereas Piper was born on March 19, 2001.

This letter focuses almost entirely on Palin's pregnancies, you would think getting the birth years right wouldn't be a problem. Especially since CBJ was the attending physician.

Wonder what else isn't right?

Anonymous said...

Circa March 27: flys from Anchorage to Juneau, 573 miles
Circa April 15: flys from Juneau to Dallas, 2482 miles

A question: did Palin stay in Juneau from March 27 until April 15? Because you can't drive to/from Juneau, it is either air or boat.

If she was there for 2.5 weeks, where were the kids? Who is really looking after them?

Anonymous said...

Regarding the card Palin sent, with the picture of Trig under a halo,
Anonymous on 11-29 at 9:26 pm asked: "Don't you think it's really odd that Van Palin is used almost like a joint last name...? The "halo" above Trig's head also uses the letters VP in it, not TP for Trig Palin. So is the word Van more meaningful than just a play on the name Van Halen?"

I don't think it is.

Here's a link to the original album cover which Palin is borrowing the image from. As you can see, they simply borrowed the halo from this, with a small bit of tweaking to make it VP instead of VH.

Changing the H in the halo to a P was probably pretty easy; simply extend the top bar and delete the right leg of the H. Changing the V to a T would not have been as easy, plus it would have obscured the source and thus the joke (that Trig is a "new release").


Anonymous said...


my flickr account is here:

All the pictures are easy to find in there.


Windy City Woman said...

Several people asked why Sarah would not cover for Bristol's second pregnancy if she covered for her first. I can think of several reasons.

Lots of people would not vote for a woman due to give birth in December to take office as vice president in January, so it would cost her & McCain votes.

Some people might think that it would be OK for a mother of 1 baby to handle the VP job, but not the mother of 2 babies. (Of course a father of 2 babies would be OK!) Again, it would cost the GOP ticket votes.

Maybe she realizes the gaffes she made in covering for the first pregnancy and didn't want to risk making the same mistakes for the second, especially since, as a VP candidate, she would be under A LOT more scrutiny, this time by the national media, not just the Alaska media.

Maybe she covered for the first because they knew the fetus had DS, but this one is "normal." Perhaps she and/or Bristol thought that Bristol could not handle a DS baby, but could handle a "normal" one, especially since Levi agreed to marry her.

Maybe she told Bristol, "I covered for you once, but after that, please keep your legs together, or practice birth control; any next babies are 'yours' not 'mine'."

What do other readers think of these possibilities?

Anonymous said...

I assumed that the "halo" above the baby's head (on the thank you card) had a "VP" for Vice President. Do we know that is a picture of Trig? Do we know that card is authentic? I would think others would have surfaced by now.

The comments by Piper in the April video are very appropriate. How would a six year old understand what her mother was doing? She sees her on the computer, not at meetings. The comment about growing up to be a babysitter was touching. She probably was told that her role would be to take care of the coming baby. She also seemed to be very interested in babies. There was a video of Sarah and Piper in a department store sometime ago. A side shot showed Piper taking an obvious interest in a baby being held by a customer.

I agree Piper has been a "prop" for some time and wonder if play dates were arranged for her during the campaign. She always seemed to be sitting or standing very quietly near her mom.

sandra in oregon

Anonymous said...

I apologize if I have posted this on this website, but I think it merits serious consideration. I like to call it "The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" theory after the movie of the same name. There were credible rumors that Bristol was pregnant early in 2008. For some reason Bristol was banished from the Palin household. Why? What if Bristol had an abortion? If this happened, it would be political death to opportunist, Sarah. First, if Bristol did have an abortion in early 2008, she would have had plenty of time to become pregnant again, and be currently pregnant.
However, Sarah knew everyone knew Bristol WAS pregnant. How could she eliminate the reality and public perception of Bristol's abortion? Simple: Sarah feebly announced that SHE was pregnant, with the plan that she would fake being pregnant and would fake giving birth to Bristol's non-existent (due to Bristol's abortion) baby. However, in order to FAKE this, Sarah HAD to adopt a child. The only children available for adoption at this late notice, were were Down's syndrome children. Ever the opportunist, Sarah GIVES birth (meaning ADOPTS) to a Down's syndrome child. This explains why Sarah tosses Trig around like a rag doll, and why Bristol could be pregnant currently. It also explains Sarah's reckless flying patterns as she wasn't pregnant. However, Since Trig was born to its natural mother in April, there came a time (close to the Texas speech time) where she had to fake the birth. Adoption records are sealed and the adoptive parents are considered to be the "real" parents in a legal sense. So, the only way to cover up Bristol's abortion was to fake that she was covering up Bristol's giving birth. However, when Bristol ruined the script by getting pregnant for a second time, Sarah decided to let Bristol fend for herself. You have to admit, this makes sense if only in a Sarah Palin perverted way.

tm68 said...

I'm not buying into the Willow theory. She's only in 8th grade this year, which would have put her in 7th grade for conception/pregnancy. I am well aware that kids that age DO have sex, but Willow was not reportedly to be out of school throughout the time she'd have been pregnant. It was Bristol who was MIA during the time she'd be showing and giving birth.

Anonymous said...

Patrick - thanks for the air travel info.

If our suspicions are proven wrong and Palin IS Trig's mother, then the reality is that Palin did just about everything she could to jeopardize that child's life - before he was born. Amnio, possible lack of prenatal care, extraordinary amounts of air travel, let alone that final trip home from Texas. Really, the world's judgment of her would be better off if we found she DID "cover" for someone else.

One has to wonder the true meaning of Palin's staunch "Right to Life" stand, don't you think? Trig would have survived in spite of her. What if he had died on that plane? I don't think she would have been aiming for that (she could have died, too, if complications arose). I just think she can't see past her own selfishness.

So what is it, Sarah, are you a "selfless" woman who has kept this big family secret? Or, are you a selfish b*tch who heinously risked a child's life?


Anonymous said...

AnOTHER interesting link:

Anonymous said...

Wow, Patrick and Anonymous@9:26, that baby thank-you note is SO strange. Remember back in April when SP wrote about Trig's birth, wording it as if she were God? Could it be that on the current note, the crown with the VP refers to her belief that she was divinely designated for the job? And did she put a VP in the baby's name to represent her own goal? I feel like I have fallen down a rabbit hole. -- FishEye

Anonymous said...

Regarding the crazy "Trig Paxson VAN PALIN" card, sent out by Sarah Palin's campaign:

This card is REAL. It was posted on

You have to sign up to the site in order to access it. We had signed up in order to see what those loony SP fans are doing, and it exceeded our expectations by far. Rarely in human history has one seen more hopelessly deluded people joined together to fight for a hopelessly loony politician.

The card can be seen here:



Anonymous said...

To those who don't think Willow is Trig's mother, you may well be right but it will not be because she would be only 13 when she conceived. That's hardly a reason to dismiss the possibility only on your own disgust at the idea. If true, it is a strong motivation to keep the secret for both Dr. CBJ and SP, and the rest of the Palin family and close friends.

As to Bristol being MIA from school and Willow not, we have some evidence of the former but no strong indication one way or the other for Willow. We see Willow in the Iron Dog race video, wearing a thick winter coat, on February 16 but that is the only direct evidence we have for the time frame in question. I've been hoping someone else can provide direct evidence that it's not Willow, because that will move us that much closer to the truth. I'm still waiting.

I have trouble accepting that Bristol had Trig, and got pregnant again almost immediately. Perhaps Audrey will do a post on issues surrounding conception within weeks of giving birth. I think most people would conclude it is possible, but unlikely. That's the same odds, roughly, as a 13-year-old getting pregnant. But the olds that a 13-year-old who had unprotected sex getting pregnant is higher than that.

So once again I encourage everyone to gather the evidence to prove the Willow theory wrong. Anyone have the yearbook for Willow's purported junior high? What about Willow's travel records? Any photos of her at events?


wayofpeace said...

SP still wearing clothes shopped for her by the republican party even though she has claimed that they were returned.

Anonymous said...

this link to a trig slideshow was posted earlier in the comments:

he clearly has facial features more consistent with DS than FAS, notably his upper lip is plump, not thin.

what i find most interesting is in the first picture (sarah, todd, and trig) her eyes don't seem to be smiling at all, whereas todd looks genuinely happy -i wonder why?


Anonymous said...

The bayoubuzz link wasn't complete - here it is:

Anonymous said...

her face never looked pregnant, at least compared to her known pic where she looked like a blimp (sorry!)

Anonymous said...

This is a follow up to my Nov. 30 "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" post. While it is true that if Sarah (& Todd) adopted a Down's Syndrome child that Sarah (& Todd) would be listed as the parents, the one thing that Sarah didn't take into consideration when devising this scheme was that the child's date of birth listed on the "amended" birth certificate would have the child's (Trig's) true date of birth, and not Sarah's "announced" date of birth. The child would have been born a day or 2 earlier than Sarah's early morning arrival home after her whirlwind flights from the Texas Repub governors' conference and speech. This is why and the "only reason" why no one has seen Trig's birth certificate!

hrh said...

Sandra in Oregon:

Thanks for the AK Airlines policy. I can understand that for puddle jumpers flying at a few thousand feet in unpressurized cabins, taking folks around the state, but how can they justify flying pregnant women at 30-40,000 ft in a pressurized cabin? That's nuts! Or am I overreacting?

Anonymous said...

Q: "How can they justify flying pregnant women at 30-40,000 ft in a pressurized cabin? That's nuts! Or am I overreacting?"

A: Overreacting.

- jwc

Brian said...

why does it matter at this point?

Anonymous said...

The page that would have the news from March 27, 2008
is there, but someone seems to have removed the actual video clip.

I think that someone is trying to keep the contents of that film away from the eyes of people who read this blog (and everyone else).

Just a hunch.

MimiTabby said...

sarah pg with child 3

Morgan said...

Brian, if you don't think the most publicly touted VP nominee in our lifetime should be accountable for possibly a.) falsifying a birth certificate b.) fraudulently filing insurance claims for a child she never had or c.) conspired with a physician to release a false statement in lieu of her medical records then you're right, this story doesn't matter. To you.

To the rest of us, it still does matter. A lot.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the removal of the video of the newsclip about the bill signing on March 27, 2008 tells us something. I watched it just a few hours ago and now it's gone. Someone is really concerned about it!!

roberta said...

So it seems to me that someone, perhaps a National Enquirer sleuth, needs to nab a dirty diaper from the Palin's trash and then also find a way to get a piece of material from Bristol or one of her siblings, or from Levi Johnson and run a DNA test.
This would prove paternity (the easiest of all DNA tests to perform) and settle this matter once and for all.
It would show the baby to either have the same paternity as one of the Palin kids, or Levi's DNA.

I know the paparazzi do dumpster dives all the time- why hasn't someone done this yet?

donviti said...

1. how many babies would have been born in that state that same week.

2. How many would have had DS?

but what do I know...great work fyi

Anonymous said...

I don't think Sarah knew Bristol was pregnant until it was at the point where something HAD to be done or that maybe Bristol was considering an abortion and her mother talked her out of it by saying have him, and we'll raise him as ours and that way, you don't do anything evil but you'll also get to go on with your life.

This is such a human story and I would feel sympathy for her if it wasn't for the involvement of the Republican Scream Machine. If it was just something we're not going to talk about, it wouldn't really bother me but its the attacks on anyone who states the VERY obvious--the birth story is not plausible-- and then now trying to equate it with a non-story about Obama needing to produce a birth certificate to prove he's a citizen that make me want them exposed publicly.I am a true Independent but I see the way the Rs control the story and inject distractions until even the most cut and dry business matter becomes a lurid tale,or back and forth sordid affair.I am thinking for example of Karl Rove being subpeonaed and the Rs circling the wagons, bringing up Sandy Berger, denouncing his being dragged into a partisan witchhunt and trying the case on Fox News and talk radio ad nauseum that by the time he refused to honor the summons to appear, I was just glad it was going away. Sarah knows that play and knows all she has to do is let them obfuscate until people just say they are sick and tired of this already and stop paying attention. She'll produce a baby soon, believe that. It will be glaringly obvious then to people with half a brain that something is "off" like the baby will be a two year old or something but the Screamers will accept it and it'll be accepted as the end of the Story.
Good job on this blog. Keep digging and know that you are serving Good by doing this. Our system of checks and balances is there to assure NOONE and no party gets so powerful as to be above the Law.

Anonymous said...

Says Two Blue Jays ("Anonymous [. . .] November 24, 2008 6:48 AM"): "Recall Peter and the Wolf. He lied and lied and finally when he tried desperately to tell the truth, well, no one believed him."

Dear Two Blue Jays, I agree with what you're trying to say about the tales told by Sarah Palin that don't hold water (in this most entertaining game of Cluedo my money is on a certain girl, a procession of parties where high-schoolers tippled till they were high and then low, and fetal alcohol syndrome), but---um---wrong boy, wrong wolf, wrong story. You're confusing Sergei Prokofiev's symphonic story _Peter and the Wolf_ . . .

. . . with Aesop's fable _The Boy Who Cried Wolf_ . . .

--Leigh Oats