Friday, December 5, 2008

Another photo...

UPDATE: This photo WAS NOT taken on March 4, 2008. It has been identified as being taken at an Annual Picnic for Volunteers for the Iditarod in Wasilla in 2007. Thanks to ALL who helped us identify it!


Anonymous said...

I would suggest the pin on her jacket would give a clue. I can't read what is on it. Her clothing seems pretty heavy for spring in southern California.

sandra in oregon

Anonymous said...

Looks photoshopped.

Anonymous said...

According to Palin's flights, she was in L.A. on March 4. Is this Disneyland? Critter country?

Audrey said...

I have tried to enlarge the pin, and can't. I also thought a theme park or something... the logs look the part... but I have no way of knowing.

And anonymous at 1:44, please let me know what aspect of this photo leads you to think it's been altered.

Anonymous said...

Her head looks as though it has been photoshopped on here, to me. Her "do" is a little too "done" for the outfit and setting and the outline around her face is too sharp.

Anonymous said...

I haven't been to Disneyland for quite a while, but I would be surprised if they had vending machines there.

sandra in oregon

Anonymous said...

I don't have anything on the photo, but I did find this which is video from early March in LA. She doesn't look huge but she's wearing a scarf ;)


Anonymous said...

Is there any more info you can provide as to how you got the photo (maybe more from the person who gave it to you)? If we could know what site it was found on, maybe we could dig more...


Anonymous said...


I teach Photoshop and digital photography and I don't see evidence of alteration. I think anon at 1:44 p.m. is just blowing smoke.

Brad S

Colleen said...

Her face would be the sharpest thing in the photo if it was in the focus frame on the camera. I looked carefully for photoshopping and it looks authentic to me. If she was in CA on "business", she may have had an early meeting then hit the parks...which is what my husband has done on several of our Disney trips. Therefore her hair would be done as it is. Look at the famous freaky Sarah supermarket picture...her hair is a little messier but it is in her signature updo in that casual photo too..

GraceR said...

Photoshop---the head's too big for the body and those don't look like her hands.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I wrote my comment above before seeing the subsequent post by anon at 1:44. I had looked at the midsection of Palin and saw no evidence of trying to make her look thinner. But looking at the face, I see what concerns the other poster. Palin's head looks oversharp, but so does her jacket. I think the photographer used the "unsharp mask" command in Photoshop (pro photographers routinely do that to just about all their digital photographs) -- it's a command that sharpens edges -- but used a rather strong setting. Thus the head looks suspiciously sharp, as if pasted in from another photo. I have blown up the photo to 300 percent and examined it closely. I think it is probably legit, or else an extremely good faked picture. The transition from head to neck, and then from neck to shirt is extremely convincing -- if it were a fake, you'd probably be able to see where her head did not quite match the neck, or if the head and neck were pasted in, where the neck did not quite blend in with the shirt right. I'm 90 percent confident the photo is OK.

Anonymous said...

Based on the lighting and the ground surface, it looks like they could be outdoors, in front of the log overhang. The clothes are not out of place in S. Cal in early March. If they are in fact outside, the clothes on the four visible figures are too light for most of the U.S. in late winter.

I don't see anything in the image to support the statements of Anonymous at 1:44 and 2:14. Troll?

Specifically, that's SP's everyday hairstyle prior to her Convention makeover -- heaven knows we've all seen it. And as for an outline around her head, I don't even see the normal "haloing" or sharp edge that often signals a digital rather than film shot. The shadows, proportions, even the angle of head and neck to spine, are all absolutely correct.

It looks to me like Anonymous just threw out that remark without even looking at the picture, for whatever reason.

- jwc

Anonymous said...

I haven't been there in 40 years, but could this be the Los Angeles Zoo in Griffith Park?

Anonymous said...

I posted my comment, above, on the Photoshop question before seeing the expert responses that ended up printed above mine. Sounds like there's general agreement that the photo is most likely legit, but I want to apologize if I jumped too hard on the person who raised the question.

- jwc

Delta said...

Compare and contrast. Which of these two women look more like they just gave birth, based on body shape?

Tina in CA said...

She has some VERY blonde highlights in this picture. Could we concentrate on matching the highlights with other known date photos?

I also agree that Disneyland doesn't have vending machines like that. They want you to purchase $4.00 sodas & bottles of water from vendors around the park.

It could be outside the park though, perhaps at one of the hotels.

Anonymous said...

I've done some photoshopping myself, and the leather-jacket photo does NOT appear to have been altered in any way (except for the big gray blob over the kid's face).

The margins and coloration of Palin's face and neck are consistent, the angle of her head and neck are appropriate, and her hands have none of the "artificial" mis-colored look you sometimes get with Photoshopping -- just to counter some of the claims by Anonymous @ 2:14 pm, and GraceR @ 3:41 pm.

In other words, I agree completely with Brad S. and jwc.


P.S. I googled images for lapel pins, and the closest I came to the one she's wearing are 1) state seal/logo pins and 2) national or other types of park pins. I never found an exact match, though (there's an oval one in darker colors for "Regal Anchorage Alaska").

Anonymous said...

Here is a photo of Palin on April 7/08. This is one I haven't seen before.

Anonymous said...

This might be apropos of nothing, but I was perusing a website called "Quipster" (see ) that displayed a "Collection of Sarah Palin Photographs".

I happened to notice two in particular: there's a "before" picture of Bristol Palin from 12/4/06 (see ) with most of the rest of the family at SP's inauguration as Gov. -- it contrasts quite markedly with the picture of Bristol in that green sweater (in the ADN 9/3/08).

Also, there's a picture from ~ 9/25/08 showing Palin at the Philadelphia Zoo, carrying Trig in a sling along with the other kids minus Track. Bristol looks pretty slim there... (see )


Jen said...

Just to let people know...nothing that comes to this blog as photographs have been photoshopped in any way, other than to do things like blot out a person's face (usually a child) or change brightness/contrast which reveal what's really going on with her body.

it serves no purpose for audrey or her team to post pics that are suspect... pictures and statements are researched ad naseum by multiple people, usually without knowing it's been done, so the same things are discovered.

and when there's a photo's date or location which can not be verified through multiple sources, it is said.

this blog/site is about finding out the truth about what happened, that is all. it serves no purpose for the pics to be altered...they are not.

many of these pics were found on public sites, like the governor's site, or people's flickr accounts, or other such public sources. some are harder to find than others, but nearly all have come directly from the internet/google images/ap photos/newspaper photos, etc.

Tina in CA said...

Anonymous said...
Here is a photo of Palin on April 7/08. This is one I haven't seen before.

December 5, 2008 6:09 PM

I think you are not correct about the date of the photo you posted. Here is an article about the signing:

Tina in CA said...

rebuttal to post by KaJo's post:
Also, there's a picture from ~ 9/25/08 showing Palin at the Philadelphia Zoo, carrying Trig in a sling along with the other kids minus Track. Bristol looks pretty slim there... (see )


I think we decided a long time ago that Bristol is not in this picture. The girl in the middle looks more like Willow and the girl on the far end is wearing glasses.

Anonymous said...

Ann. wrote:
"Here is a photo of Palin on April 7/08. This is one I haven't seen before."

But from two other sites, it appears that photo was taken in 2007.

I was excited for a moment but thought that there's no way she would do something so public without some pregnant belly. She may be dumb but she's not that dumb.



Anonymous said...

anonymous at 6:09, are there any other available pics at that event? Particularly with a side view? She certainly doesn't look 2 weeks away from delivery.

bacci40 said...

i live in is not warm in is usually pretty windy and can get cold (at least cold for us) during the day

if that is her, again, even if she is preggers...she was flying during the late stages of a possible crisis pregnancy...which is wack

Anonymous said...

To anonymous 6:09 PM:

Your are mistaken! This photo was taken on 6th June 2007 (not 2008!) in Fairbanks, as a short research on the governor's official website reveals instantly!!

"Governor Sarah Palin celebrated the passage of AGIA at a ceremonial bill signing June 6, 2007 in Fairbanks. The actual bill will be signed later this week."


Tina in CA said...

Audrey - I've been looking at photos & video clips from early March. Sarah's VERY blonde highlights in her bangs as shown in the photo you are wanting us to ID do not match up with other photos/videos from that March timeframe.

I have seen quite a few though (including the picture of her by the pipeline) from June 07 that show lighter streaky bangs.

What do you think??

Anonymous said...

Anon. at 6:09pm--WOW--can we verify the date of the picture? Looks like a bill signing event concerning a pipeline.

Someone has deleted several pictures from the official Alaska portraits page; someone better take a picture of this page, quick.


BG! said...

Bristol looks pretty slim there?? From out behind that tree?? Actually, Bristol's belly looks pretty round there from outbehind those trees...

MC said...

Anon 6:09 pm--I found a different source that gave the date for that photo as June 6, 2007...

But I had never seen that photo before--it's amazing what lots of eyes looking can do!


Anonymous said...

Kajo, if you are talking about the zoo picture on this blog under Bristol Palin Pregnancy Photos, it's from July instead of September. But I do not believe Bristol or Willow are in that picture; those two girls don't look like them. That picture is also interesting because Sarah looks a little bit heavy in the hips and thighs, as if she actually might have given birth three months earlier. But I think she looks that way because the white shorts are skewed by the sling. -B.

Anonymous said...

We only have Palin's word for what transpired before Trig's birth. And we know what her word is worth. I don't believe anything about it; she fabricated the whole thing and didn't realize it would come back to haunt her. It is completely unbelievable, and just because she has had previous pregnancies doesn't mean she knows anything about biology.

I don't know what to believe about Palin, but one thing is for sure: she made up the story of leaking amniotic fluid.

Anonymous said...

The photo of Sarah Palin is not from April 7/08. The news article is from that day, but the photo is from June/07. It is the signing of the AGIA pipeline.

Palin actually looks like she might be pregnant in that picture, oddly enough.

Anonymous said...

SP was at a NEWSWEEK Women & Leadership Event in Los Angeles in March, but I am not finding exact days:

Also, to Anonymous @6:09 PM, the link you posted is generating a "URL not found," complete with exclamation point, from the state of Alaska,
A sure sign of an interesting photo. --FishEye

Anonymous said...

The vending machines does not rule out Disneyland. Cedar Point sells beverages from vending machines as well as normal vendors for the same price.

Try seeing which parks have vendor contracts with Minute Maid? I would, but I have no idea how to go about doing that.

Anonymous said...

The photo link that Anonymous @6:09posted can be found at this site:

On that site, it says: "This photo of of Pearce and Governor Palin at the AGIA signing ceremony last year."

The AGIA ceremony was on June 6, 2007, well before April 7, 2008, and long before Palin was supposed to appear pregnant, according to this site:

I think a good question is: Why was Sarah Palin dressed so oddly at the signing ceremony? I find it a little funny that she looks like she has a baby bump here more than when she was supposed to look like she had one.

Anonymous said...

Hmmn, according to the L.A. Times, there were "hurricane" like winds in L.A. on March 4, 2008.

Could explain the jacket.

Anonymous said...

to anon at 9:19
i believe it is the work outfit under her shirt. overall pants, they bunch in the front real bad...carhartts or something

Anonymous said...

Are there any other pictures of Sarah in this jacket?

If not, it might be Todd's (if he was with her). The sleeves are pretty long.

Anonymous said...

Nothing to do with the photos. But does the state of Alaska pay for Sarah and her families medical? These cost will have to be audited by the state or Sarah's personal Taxes? I don't think you could hide those facts from the IRS.

Alex said...

If you study her bangs in the KTLA interview (I tried to freeze it and copy a still but I couldn't. Maybe you photo shop experts can?) you'll see they look very different than in the photo in question. The bangs in KTLA interview are darker, shorter. Overall, her hairstyle looks frowsier, less styled than in the KTLA, Newsweek videos. So unless she had her hair done while in LA, I don't think the photo was taken during that trip.

And yes, March in Southern California can be chilly enough for a jacket.

Anonymous said...

Hmm... Look at the ceiling/background. Someone should be able to recognize it. It looks like either a hand-hewn ceiling, or some HUGE logs, with some plants hanging down from a hole/window.
Is there a hotel around that someone might recognize?

Anonymous said...

Wait a minute... I think I have been in a place like that. I believe it was a restaurant adjacent to a hotel. Don't remember the name though. :(

Janet said...

A blogger posted a photo of herself, Sarah Palin, and Piper Palin that was taken at the Fairbanks AK airport in March of 2008. In her post she claims that the Governor was pregnant, but the photo doesn't show that since it's a head-shot. And considering the fact that the Governor was wearing a winter jacket & scarf, I'm wondering how the blogger knew that she was pregnant? My guess is that since the blogger posted her story & photo on April 29, 2008, she had learned of the pregnancy and childbirth after-the-fact and thus had woven it into her post.

Here's the link to the blogger's story & photo:

The blogger claims she has "several" photos of her airport encounter with the Governor. Perhaps she will share them with you.

Anonymous said...

video taken on 3/3/2008
no highlights in hair...magic scarf on

Janet said...

A quick search of the 'net showed me that the 2008 PolarTREC orientation was held in Fairbanks, AK, from March 2-9, 2008.

I don't know when the blogger left Fairbanks, but if she stayed for the entire orientation, it would have been on March 9th at the earliest (more likely, March 10th or beyond). I believe Governor Palin announced her pregnancy to the public on March 5th, 2008.

Anonymous said...

I just thought about something...
They are syaing that Bristol will have a baby within the next couple od weeks, right? And everybody is saying SEE - she canNOT be the mother of Trig AND become pregnant in April, since he was born in April.
Well, but we also have seen the difference in size between when Mercedes is holding him and when his (great)grandparents are holding him.
Sooo... By my estiamtion, he must be about 6 weeks old when he is being 'presented' by (great)grandparents as well as by SP and hubby. So, if he is about 6 weeks old by April 18, Bristol could very well be pregnant with the second child now. People ask why would she do that? Simple: Her parents do not believe in brthcontrol, so she has no idea what it is/how to use it!

Postergirl said...

4 days after supposedly giving birth, she is giving a public congratulations/photo op to the National Junior Honor Society... wow... what a superwoman! To be out and about like that 4 days after giving birth...just wow.

Ace Armstrong said...

I totally agree with your assessment that this is not about one or several photos.
As a father who was present at the birth of all four of my natural children, this story stank to high heaven from the get go.
I almost had to deliver son #2 as the midwife was a ways away and we called her when contractions commenced. This was my wife's third child and it came rather fast.
I also drove around with the same wife on bumpy roads before the birth of our daughter in hopes of getting things underway.
The point being once the water breaks it's no time to be messing around. Your physician friend has it right in spades.
Personally I would be proud to show anyone the birth certificate of any of my children.
Subterfuge and obfuscation are tools employed by grifters and scam artist.
Unfortunately there are those individuals who have no morals or ethics and no personal compass to guide them through this vale of tears, and they find it incumbent to gain fortune and fame at any cost.
I applaud your efforts in this matter and urge to continue until resolution.

Anonymous said...

here is a march 8th pic without the kid standing in front of her

rebagg said...


could you fill in more of the evidence that points you to a 4 March 08 date for the new photo?

The pattern of ceiling beams, the cement floor, the sequence of soft drink brands in the Minute Maid machine, Palin's jacket, the lapel pin, the white haired woman in the background all provide visual components that might surface in other photos or in CA & AK memories.

Is the complete schedule/itinerary of Palin during spring 2008 available on any site? If you could publish that on your site, perhaps your viewers could find photographic or personal intersections with Palin that might generate further glimpses of the state of her pregnancy during these months.

If Palin continues to pursue her national ambitions, at some point she will need to confront the mounting implausibilities in her birth of Trig narrative. She has yet to face on camera an intrepid interviewer fully briefed on Audrey's evidence and reasonibng. If she ducks such encounters (notice she declines Ophra), and dodges explaining her doctor's unavailability and the removal of (otherwise harmless) photographic evidence from Alaskan Government websites, the overhang of doubt about her honesty will eventually become unsustainable and collapse her credibility. At some point sane Republicans themselves will not want to entrust their party's future to such an alarmingly unqualified person and demand she deal with a situation that could blow up in their faces if her ascension continues.

Anonymous said...

my eyes are sooooo tired...i've joined in on this and can't stop we know when these pics are from? if they go with the date of the article...well, you know the rest.

Anonymous said...

last one for tonight, i promise. adjust the lighting on it. blurry, but the jacket is buttoned, doesn't hang funny, buttons are lined up. i dunno, maybe i'm just tired, but i can't see anything that would make me even think she was preggers on march 29.

Anonymous said...

I looked back at the Jack Bog website

and was wondering if someone could enhance the screenshot of the Frank Elan video where SP is thumping her belly. Like the "nail in the coffin" picture, it sure looks like there is some padding under there....

Audrey said...

Anon at 2:55 a.m. Thanks for your late night work! This is a good find.

The "famous" photograph of Gov. Palin with Andrea Gusty was taken 14-15 days later. In that photo she can barely get her arms around her stomach. Here, she does not look as if she is stretching at all.

Anonymous said...

She must gain and lose water weight strangely. I've noticed some of the photos in a given time frame show her with a thin face and others with a puffy face. I know in the ones of her first pregnancy,she looks like a Macy's parade Charlie Brown balloon.
That one of the fake belly (gray shirt) and the one of her in black three weeks later, the faces don't look the same. She has a very thinnish face in the gray shirt photo and that balloon face in the second.

Delta said...

Anon at 2:55....I get an error msg when trying to get to that link for the picture.

Audrey, is there any way you can post the pic if the link is broken?

Anonymous said...

Anynonymous re: water weight

There are any number of drugs which can cause that type of water retention problem. Steroids come to mind. Not saying illegally used, there are many legitimate medical reasons for their use (asthma etc.)

But there are lots of unacknowledged side effects. We finally realized some of my mother-in-law's mental health issues (paranoia, personality changes, etc.) might be due to long-term low level steroid use for respiratory problems. These side effects are NOT well known but can be serious.
Google 'steroid psychosis' for more info.

Anonymous said...

here is the full link. It's still there. It's from a "newsletter" or legislative update from Sen. French dated 03/29/08


Anonymous said...

I got the error message, too, but here's how I got around it:
first go to, click on the button/name "French" near the top of the page, then on French's page look in the blue box called "Office Publications". At the bottom you'll see "More Publications" where you can get to the listing for 3/29/08. Good luck!

jessicamarie12 said...

Anon @ 5:43am: I am very sensitive to wheat, dairy, and artificial sweeteners, and my face can blow up from one day to the next if I consume much of those foods. I can go from sharp facial features to non-existent -- she definitely may be the same way.

Anonymous said...

here is the picture:

BG! said...

I would be willing to bet that the girl in the black shirt to the far left in the zoo photo IS Bristol. The girl in the middle with the pony tail is no one I have seen before. I can say with almost 100% certainty that Bristol is the one in glasses. I'm off to Google to see if I can find mention that she accompanied her mother to Philadelphia. That is Bristol and she definitely looks more post-partum than SP.

Windy City Woman said...

To Anonymous of 12/05/08 at 9:18,

You asked if we could find out which parks have contracts with Minute Maid. Unfortunately, Minute Maid is made by Coca-Cola, and oodles of places have contracts with Coke, probably half, the other half having Pepsi contracts.

To all,
If this photo was taken in early March 2008, no way was she 5-6 weeks away from giving birth to a 6-pound baby.

Tina in CA said...

Hi Anon @ 2:12AM

Those photos were from 2007. See Audrey's October Blogs, just toward the top. They were photos taken by Trisha Ward and were dated with 100% accuracy.

P.S. Rather than use Anonymous, give us a screen name to call you by. You have some great insight! (even though it WAS in the middle of the night!)

Anonymous said...

tina, late night anon here. thanks so much for dating those. i thought i had checked the website thoroughly but i guess not. hubby was on the night shift so i had nothing better to do than dig around for pics, now i'm addicted! hope to find more! y'all would be the first to know.

Anonymous said...



I was wondering if it is appropriate to email Senator Hollis French at his email addy:

The question would be: "Senator, could you see or did you think Sarah Palin was pregnant on March 28, 2008?

Mr. French can be reached in his Juneau office at 866-465-3892 as well.

Of course, I am not even sure he would be willing to say anything but it would be worth a try. Perhaps one of the Alaskan vistors on this blog/site could give an opinion whether it's appropriate to do that.

I was also wondering if Rachel Maddow on MSNBC should get some hints. She is a fantastic reporter.

You know, I was laughing when I read:
Governor Palin had said she would sell the Governor jet because the Alaska state inventory would be relieved of this debt, oh and also it was impractical.

Too funny when considering the make up artist, hair stylist, clothing expenses as well travel expenses for her and her entire family, it sure would be cheaper to keep the jet in the long run.
I know this is off the subject but just shows how Sarah Palin tried to deceive the Americans and the rest of the world by saying she is just like any other regular mom. I think Sarah Palin's biggest problem is she says things without even giving a thought and those things come back to haunt her. See, if she didn't say thouse deceitful things, trying to appear "folksy", people would probably not pay too much attention on her clothing, stylist expenses.

Well, No, Mrs. Plain, regular moms do not have the money or cannot afford to pay $110.000 or more to stylists and definitely not ?$180.000 for clothing.

On the other hand, some stylists in the U.S. must be making real good money. Perhaps it's time for a career change:)

Anyway, back to the topic of this thread: Yes, I still do not believe Sarah Palin is the biological mother of Trig nor do I believe he was born on April 18th as reported. Just think of this: why so many photos are disappearing from Governor's Alaska website? Tells you something, doesn't it?

PS: To view the long URLs, all you have to do, is to view the source and copy&paste it in your browser window. In Firefox, it would be right click on your mouse, to view selection source.

Anonymous said...

PLEASE everyone - who posts links. If it is at all long - USE to create a shorter one. It only takes a second. So many of these links are cut off and useless to us!

Tina in CA said...

Anon @ 10:07am,
Not a bad idea to talk to French. If you look at the article in question, he NEVER refers to Palin by name, rather calls her Governor (or she/her).

I can tell there is no love lost there. If her Republican followers are tiring of Palin, imagine the Democrats like French!

You might even consider speaking with one of his aides. They don't have as much to lose.


rebagg said...

I just checked Senator French's site under 29 March 08 and looked at the three pictures of Palin presumably taken on the day before, 28 March 08. The third picture is a full frontal of Palin and three others, French and two other legislators. It shows no sign whatever of pregnancy three weeks before Trig's putative birthdate. She seems to be wearing the same scarf in the third photo she wore during the meeting with legislators. Since this photo is presently on an Alaskan official's website, may we assume it's unlikely to have been photoshopped?

palin pregnancy truth said...

Anonymous said...

The photographer's name is on this photo. He, also, sells photos. I'm willing to bet this isn't the only shot of her.

Can someone contact him to find out if he has 'other definitive' photos of her and how much they sell for?

Anonymous said...

March 2008 photographer contact information

GraceR said...

"Well, No, Mrs. Plain, regular moms do not have the money or cannot afford to pay $110.000 or more to stylists and definitely not ?$180.000 for clothing."

Look, I was not a supporter of the McCain/Palin ticket and I enjoy this blog and any site that gets at the TRUTH of any matter. That said, the issue of the clothing, stylist, hairdresser, makeup artist during the campaign is ridiculous. I worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign last fall and winter. She, too, had a hair stylist and make-up artist travelling with her. Her clothes were picked out by a stylist in New York. In case people are unaware, there are not enough hours in the day for candidates for national office to stop for a cup of coffee let alone go shopping---literally 18 hours a day are tightly scheduled with rallies, fundraisers, meetings, briefings, phone consults, and travel. Palin was doing 3-6 rallies a day, all over the country, like Hillary. These rallies are filmed and photographed to go to media all over the world. Females, especially, are expected to look very well put together--something they do not have time to do for themselves while on the trail. The RNC decides on their candidate's "image" and so ordered up the clothes, hair, make-up, etc. for the way they wanted to present Palin to the world. Since the candidate did not have time to do her own shopping, these stylists bring back TONS of different styles in different sizes for fittings---most of the stuff ends up being sent back eventually as they don't fit or the candidate just doesn't look good in the outfit. Hillary had more control over her own image as she was the one running for the top spot, not the 2nd spot.

Having been around campaigns and seen how they operate, I feel the RNC is throwing Palin under the bus here. These "image" expenses are typically shown on financial reports as "personal assistant" expenses and thus "hidden" in most campaigns. This is why you can't find the same expenses for the Clinton campaign even though they were clearly there---and probably in every other campaign as well.

Anonymous said...

anon @ 12:04
on my late night search last night, that is one of the photos i came up with and posted here. i dug through all the archives relating to the dates we are interested in here and that was the only pic i came across we would have any interest in.
late night anon

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the great work in finding the picture of Sarah Palin on Senator's French website!

For all of you who are quite new to this board and have started to hunt for revealing pictures of Sarah Palin, I recommend to look into my flickr page, where I have collected numerous pictures of SP taken for example in 2008. This might give you more inspirations.

Here is the link:


Palin Pregnancy Truth said...

There seemed to be a new picture and new information in this video:

Have we been able to conclusively date the interview photo on the last day of Alaska legislature? Do we have any other information on who was present or who the camera man is?

Alex said...

March 3 2008 - KTLA interview in Los Angeles; hair looks darker, frowsier. bangs are spikey.

March 8 - Newsminer photo, hair looks lighter; more highlights, more styled.

Sometime March 9-11 Fairbanks Airport, Eubanks photo (Polartek) to FL? Hair looks blonder, similar to March 8.

If someone can take stills from KTLA or Newsweek Video, you could see quite a difference in hair, I believe.

All of this to say that her hair in the photo in question looks more like the hairdo of March 8-11 photos rather than in March 3 video.

Alex said...

OOOOoops. just read the update. BUT what that proves is that you can date things a bit by her hairdo (can't all us women do that?)

But it raises another question for me.

SP is in LA til March 4th then back to AK for birth announcement then off again a few days later to where? (When Ms. Eubanks spotted SP and Piper in Fairbanks airport.) Were they on Eubanks' flight to FL?

That woman sure does travel. . .pregnant or not.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the update. As always, you were interested only in accurate information. What I find fascinating is how quickly your photographic postings seem to get one of two responses from the Palinites: (1) "looks photoshopped" and/or (2) it must be misdated! (And then the old standby, variations of "Don't trust your lyin' eyes because my cousin knew a guy whose wife didn't look pregnant when she was three weeks overdue with triplets.")

Troll traffic certainly does perceptibly and predictably increase as those nails keep coming.

Anonymous said...

Just a note about the long urls: Although the line appears to be cut off, it's only hidden. You can highlight, copy and paste the entire link in a new browser window/tab (you may have to highlight until the beginning of the next line to get it all).

Open Minded

Anonymous said...

Has anyone any idea when Deactivation 1-297th Army: took place?

Anonymous said...

Hello GraceR!

Thank you very much for your comment.

I understand all that and personally I have no problem with that spending on Mrs. Palin's hair style, make-up and clothes if it was not for Sarah Palin's her own words.

However, I wouldn't compare this issue with Hillary Clinton's clothing, stylist expenses.

First of all Hillary Clinton never said she is a hockey-mom, a "folksy" gal who is just like any other middle class American. Hillary Clinton would not even go there as to lie about her clothing, hair stylist expenses.

Frankly, Sarah Palin looked just fine when John McCain introduced her as his running mate. Her clothes, her hair style were just fine. She is a good looking woman(she doesn't need much to look good). In fact, I am pretty sure she would get respect if she kept herself the way she was and not acting like a celebrity during the rallies.

IMHO, the worst was, when she denied she got all those expensive clothes, then she said they were all given back to be donated to a charity. She made it look like they forced her to wear all those designer clothes or to have this and that hair style & make up.

BTW, she was still wearing the "campaign designer clothes" when she campaigned for Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss last week.

What I am getting at is that, it's about her credibility.

One more thing: It's not only about Sarah Palin's personal clothing, stylist expenses. It's about the entire family. Of Course, I am still trying to understand why Sarah Palin said : the campaign had purchased clothes for 8 people. Who are these 8 people? As far as I know, it was Sarah Palin, Todd Palin, Bristol Palin, Willow Palin. Piper Palin, and Trig Palin during the campaign.

Is it common that the campaign purchases clothes for the entire family and pay for all travel, food,... expenses?

If that's the case, Palin family sure have been pretty expensive for the campaign:)

Anonymous said...

Look how light her hair is in this picture when she is meeting with students on March 11, 2008. I totally missed her at first.

Aside: When I was pregnant and working in a senior corporate position, I purchased professional-looking maternity clothes, as did other senior level women who were pregnant. I think it's curious that Sarah wore that casual blue jacket to formal government events (as shown in the picture in the link).

Anonymous said...

The Deactivation apparently took place in August 2008. (1) The pictures are generally in chronological order on the Alaska governor's website and they are location with other pictures taken in August. (2) The urls to the picture on the official State of Alaska website contain the date 2008-08-30 in them.

Anonymous said...

Observation regarding Sarah's blond/treated/colored hair (whatever the correct term is) in the March 11, 2008 picture:

As I recall, pregnant women are instructed not to color or use chemicals on their hair during pregnancy in order not to harm the baby. (Similar to not ingesting caffiene.) It's interesting that Sarah ignored this aspect of prenatal care.

Anonymous said...

Do all governors travel as much as Palin does? Is this usual?

Anonymous said...

I don't know if anyone has posted this 'comparison' picture yet. It's a little crass, but I hadn't seen the picture on the right before, and I have No Idea if it has any relevance. Input from the experts would be great!


(same thing)

Anonymous said...

- April 3-6, 2008: Piper joined the governor in the Anchorage area because -- according to state travel records authorizing the trip -- the first family was to read to students a Wasilla Christian school. The round trip flight from Juneau cost $550.

There are very likely photos of this event on a school website but I don't know if the school in question is in Anchorage or Wasilla.

Anonymous said...

That picture comparison has already been debunked by Audrey. Go to the main site and click Palin Pregnancy Photos. Be sure you have explored the site thoroughly before posting new pix. Audrey has got pretty much anything that is out there and easy to find.

Anonymous said...

Hello everybody,

it's great to see many new participants here on this site.

I would encourage anyone to continue to search for pictures and further material. There are still lots of open questions, and it should be obvious now to anybody with a clear mind that Sarah Palin has got many secrets to hide. For me it was a revelation to learn from Andrew Sullivan's latest blog that the Palin camp is not able to provide a SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER which could support the claim that Sarah Palin is the biological mother of Trig. Apart from the statement of Cathy Baldwin-Johnson from the 3rd November, of course (who strictly gives no interviews about that matter at all). And why is that? Because there is simply nothing to hand over. Sarah has never given birth to Trig.

By the way, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson wasn't always that shy! In this article from 2002, she proves to be a real chatterbox and seems to have no problems at all to talk to the press:

There is another thing I would like to point out: In this medical statement about SP which was published one day before the election on 3rd November 2008, signed by Cathy Baldwin-Johnson...

...the link is here:

...there is an obvious mistake, which has never been explained or corrected and of course never been investigated by the MSM (...they are just cowards...sorry). The BIRTH DATE of Piper is obviously WRONG!

Officially, Piper was born on the 19th March 2001.

In this document, it says that Piper was born in 2000, which is an apparent mistake...or isn't it? Well, we don't know yet, because the MSM obviously believes that SP is bonkers and hands out wrong statements, even if they are of utmost importance and very carefully crafted. But what is the real birthdate? Would somebody make such a bad mistake in such an important document, which was obviously prepared over the course of several weeks?

Another point: We were lucky to find the picture(s) from 26th March 2008. What we now really need are more pictures from previous pregnancies of Sarah Palin. So far, we haven't got any apart from this one...

...which was officially provided by the Heath family (Sarah Palin's birthname) to the Associated Press. It is reported to show Sarah Palin in 1989 during her first pregnancy.

She looks on this picture like she is smuggling a bowling ball, if I may borrow this expression from a previous posting.

It would be incredibly helpful to find pictures which show SP during previous pregnancies, for example with Piper. During this time, SP was already the mayor of Wasilla. There MUST be pictures somewhere. I am sure that Audrey would be incredibly grateful to receive some of those...! ;-)

Everybody, please keep up the good work.


Anonymous said...

Here's an image I hadn't seen before from February 26, 2008 (scroll down toward the bottom): It's related to another photo Patrick has on his Flickr site but shows more of SP.

When you click on the photo, you can enlarge it. However, it's unclear to me where SP's outfit ends and the shadow begins. Thoughts from our photo experts?

Anonymous said...

I think you are all idiots. Who cares if the baby is the baby is biological or not? It should not make any difference in the minds of good people. My husband was adopted. I applaud his parents. You all need something better to do with your time. Go volunteer or something good.

Anonymous said...

Re: The Senator French March 28 pictures .. I think this is a good lead. In the first picture where she is sitting at the table, notice how close up she is. Would a pregnant woman be sitting this close to the table? I hope the photographer can be reached. Good find!

Anonymous said...

To anon @ 3.25

The other two were probably Track and Levi.


GraceR said...

Hi anonymous 3:25: I've lived in DC my whole life and spent about 8 years working for the DNC; I can only assume that the RNC works similarly (although I understand that they run a "tighter" ship insofar as control of their message, image, etc.). Understand that SP was the #2 on the ticket. The #1 does have a lot more liberty and can often call the shots (although not always once the party funding kicks in). The #2 has virtually no say-so over anything---message, speeches, image, clothing, etc. Now, what the exact case was with SP I don't know, but given the fact she was not well-known and not a DC politician (US Senator, Congresswoman, etc.), I doubt she had any input. I did hear one interview where she said that was the most frustrating thing for her--to be told what to say, what to wear, how to act, etc. Being the chief executive of a state, she was used to calling all the shots and went to calling no shots.

As far as clothes for her "family"---I believe the RNC also purchased clothes for Track and Levi Johnston to wear during the convention. I spoke to someone I used to work with who now works with the RNC and she told me the Palin's did bring clothes with them but the RNC stylists didn't think they were "appropriate" for the big stage of the convention and national/international TV.

And I agree with you---I thought she looked just fine, too, in her own clothes, but when New York stylists are hired by a campaign, they need to earn their keep so I'm sure they didn't like her clothes at all. BTW, the jacket she wore in GA last week is her own--there is video of her wearing it in July in Alaska and she wore it at one of the last rallies, after the clothes story broke, and she pointed out it was her own clothes. I saw a story about that on one of the nightly news shows here in DC. It does resemble the jacket she wore during her convention speech though.

Anonymous said...

Here's a better URL for the Progressive Alaska photo I mentioned in my 6:41 post.

Anonymous said...


Thank you very much to both Kathleen and GraceR.

Yes, it must be Track and Levi but Track was sent away to Iraq on ?Sep 11 and Levi was there only at the RNC convention( as far as I know). Also I think they are talking about the expenses all along the way until election ( in other words, not only the expenses at the convention). Anyho, it doesn't matter. Done is done!

Now, I just read this article at the ADN site:
Access denied to Palin's testimony

(PS: to view the long URLs, please view selection source then copy & paste the entire URL in your browser)

It's a current article and there are comments from former Palin supporters.

Now, I cannot believe Piper Palin's birth date is not correct on the Medical record page. For some reasons, I cannot view that PDF document. So weird as I can view other PDFs without any problem. So, I read all about that medical record page here on this blog/site.

Anonymous said...

This man might be someone to talk to. Google wev shea go to TPM. Use to be attorney general in Alaska. Wrote some letters to Palin very interesting.

Anonymous said...

If somebody cannot open the PDF document with the medical report dated 3rd November 2008, I have also made screenshots here:

The location of the original PDF is here:


Anonymous said...

Hello Anon @ December 6, 2008 10:03 PM!

Thank you for the info!

Very interesting letters indeed.

Here is the link to the letters:
Now, I am making tiny URls for you darlings:)

The more I read, the more I am shocked over John McCain's choice of his running mate. What was he thinking? or was he thinking at all?

Hello Audrey, yes I also believe the girl in the middle(at the zoo) is Bristol Palin. The other girl is most probably just someone who happened to be around. I am sure we all at one point were in some photos without our knowledge:)

By the way, does anybody know why her doctor left (?had to leave) Mat-Su hospital on June 1, 2008? Why would a doctor serving the same hospital for 25 years, would leave her position?
It just dosn't make any sense.

To Anon a@ December 6, 2008 6:53 PM

If we are all a bunch of idiots, what are you doing here unless you love the company of idiots?
You don't get it, do you? If Sarah Palin was honest about it, nobody would care whether Trig was adopted or not.
By the way, did your husband's adoptive mother fake a pregnancy before she adopted your husband? No, I didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know why Trigs name is not listed on the Mat-Su online baby directory for April 18th? When you go to Mat-Su hospital website they list all the babies born. Trig is not listed?

Anonymous said...

Hello Patrick!

Thank you very much for the screen shots of the PDF Document.

WOW, I must say.

Was this document written entirely by the doctor? by the same doctor?

I am very sceptical. Here is why:

Firstly, Piper Palin's birth date as pointed out by Patrick and I am sure noticed by many others, is incorrect (well if we believe the official birth date of Piper Palin being 19th March 2001). So, this is the first red flag.

Secondly, the letter doesn't have any file number, any CC, anything that makes it official.

Thirdly, remember I wrote in my earlier post that I could not view & read this PDF document. When I downloaded the document, all I could see was the logo, partly though(Cross and PROVI).
I cannot help but think this document was not even written on Providence Health & Services generic letterhead. If you go to the hospital's website and look at the pre-registration form, you'll see PROVIDENCE Health & Services, and not PROVIDENCE Health & Services Alaska on the letterhead as on this PDF document. Of course, It could be that they have different letterheads.
I am also sceptical to the address field at top of the letter, as it doesn't start with Doctor's name. It has just the mailing address, street address, ph # and web address. Very strange indeed!

Now, why a reputable doctor would not write this very important document on her own official individual letterhead?

I dunno but I am really truly very sceptical about this document. In other words, if I were an employer to hire someone, after reading a document like this, I would have many many question marks.

Besides, phrases like " No major medical problems", "No first degree relatives with major medical problems", "No routine prescription medications", " No known health problems" are suspicious to me. Why an experienced doctor would express herself in such a way, on such an important document?

What do you guys think?

PS: At last I found out why the doctor left Mat-Su( where she is currently on consulting staff). She wants to devote her time in the area of Child Abuse and Prevention.

Anonymous said...

Re Anon 10:36

I have questions about the MD letter too.

For me, it started with the last two letters in the typed signature+degrees ("FF"), which are a lighter gray than the rest of the typed letters. They match the grey of the signature above. I tried to think why. Just a routine glitch in making a pdf? Or perhaps someone "enhancing" the letter by selecting the signature and changing its color from black to blue, so it would be more like fountain-pen-ink blue. But the stylus slipped and those two letters (FF) were also selected without noticing.

Why does it matter? If this indicates that this routine part of the letter has been altered, it makes one wonder what else might have been altered in a way that is not as easy to see.

I am wondering about that because I too find it odd that this letter is not written on the MD's individual letterhead and is instead on this generic letterhead that must be available by the handful for anyone who wants to snag some off an unwary office worker's desk.

I would expect some info below the signature line, perhaps a cc (if only "to file") or a filing alphanumeric, or even the MD's title -- she is "Director . . . " on their web page. I'd expect an indication of the staffer who typed it. At the TOP of the letter, I'd expect the three usual addressee lines indicating to whom the letter was initially delivered.

When I looked at the Obama medical letter, it, too, had these unusual omissions (except is IS on the MD's own letterhead -- and I immediately wondered if a forger had copied the format of the Obama letter, with all its unusual oddities in terms of conventional business practice).

Issuing the letter so very late in the election process would help these oddities go unnoticed.

However, since Dr CBJ must be aware of the existence of this letter and has not repudiated it, it must be genuine.


Anonymous said...

Amy, in your comment 12/7/08 12:01 PM, you were questioning the "FF" in lighter print following the "FAA". I'd say all of your questioning is legitimate, but I might point out that the letters following "FAA" are "FP", not "FF".

In the alphabet soup of the American Medical Association, the letters probably mean "Fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians".

Speculation why the last 2 letters are in the same color as the signature: The signature is a scan picture of her own signature, and it was APPLIED to the letter in software such as Microsoft Word as an image in the appropriate place. Whoever prepared the signature also typed in the last 2 letters in that document that was transferred to the already-prepared letter as an image file, forgetting that it'd print up in the same color as the signature.

No telling who really prepared that letter.

Interesting, that Dr. CB-J's work at Providence Matanuska Health Care in 2002 when she received the Physician of the Year aware was in working with children of abuse, be it physical or sexual abuse.

In the article at she said, ""Family physicians not only see children that perhaps have been physically or sexually abused or neglected, but also they see the long-term effects (of that abuse). There are a lot of pregnant and parenting teen-agers with a history of maltreatment, especially sexual abuse. And you see adult women with depression, anxiety, panic attacks... [...]"




Anonymous said...

Hi KaJo 2:30,

Re MD letter: I, too, have inserted a graphic of a signature into a letter in Word, but it is not possible for the signature (the graphic) to overlap the text in the Word file (as far as I know). I also don't see how a typed "FP" could be aligned so perfectly with the other typed text on that line. Or why one would go to that effort.

To me, a simpler explanation is that the letter was typed, the MD signed it, it was scanned, and someone looked at the scanned version (now a jpg), thought the signature would look better if it was blue, and changed it by drawing a crooked formatting loop around the signature to define the area to be changed to a different color (using a rectangle would not work because of the overlap). Then make the pdf.

But let's think a minute about the writing of this letter.

Let's say CBJ wrote it. Typed it herself. Either signed it or added a graphic of her signature to her letter. As she is giving it one last look before sending it off, she decides to make her signature a different color.

Plausible? No.

If I put myself in CBJ's shoes, I would be oblivious to ink color, I would be reviewing the content obsessively. I also doubt that I would use an electronic signature for this letter, even if I usually did--because I would be aware of how simple it would be for anyone to alter my letter, and I could prove that only with the ink-signed original in my possession. (I probably would not list my award that Sarah recommended me for in the 1st paragraph.)

BUT if I imagine myself as a campaign staffer, getting this letter out at the last moment -- yes, forging it or altering it! -- I would have looked at the Obama letter and would use some of the same formatting; I find and use a graphic of CBJ's signature; I would be less likely to notice that I had gotten Piper's birthday wrong; I would cover a lot of those points that the campaign/SP was nervous about that an MD might not choose to mention; I might even change the circumstances under which CBJ left the Mat Su hospital -- just in case there might have been a tiny bit of disgruntlement about the hospital getting sucked into all this. As a campaign staffer, I might not realize that CBJ's subspecialty is child abuse, incl sexual abuse, so I would not shy away from citing the award, about which the ONLY comment on the web by CBJ details the sexual abuse aspect, as you have noted, KaJo.

However, the giant fact that CBJ has not repudiated this letter makes it officially true. Does anyone feel like asking her? It can't be possible that she is not aware of this letter???

I know these MANY irregularities of the letter are tiny details, but if this letter was forged or altered, we can all stop looking at SP's stomach size. That would be a relief.


Anonymous said...

I think CBJ is deliberately incommunicado. I wrote to her several months ago, very respectfully asking her to clarify the truth of this matter, to no avail. The MD letter is open to fair scrutiny and challenge unless/until CBJ publicly owns or disavows it, and clarifies exactly what her role was in the birth and who gave birth to Trig. It is unfortunate that she is in the middle of this mess, as I believed her to be an honorable person; but if she is abetting a fraud, then that is not honorable and she will have to live with the consequences.

Anonymous said...

After reading comments here, I went back to look at the November 3MD letter, and noticed a few things. First (maybe unimportant?), a paper document must have been scanned on a color scanner, because the pages are not aligned with the paper edges -- the first page text is higher on the right than left, and page 2 text is higher on the left than right, and the margins are crooked. So it's not a pdf made directly from a word document in the computer; it has been printed out and then scanned. Second, the resolution of the type and logo are poor, perhaps indicating several generations of copies or a poor resolution scanner. Third, and most important, I now agree with the poster who thought it was odd that the color of the letters FP are the same as the signature. I hadn't realized its importance, but this is really odd, because if the letter were signed in ink by the good doctor, how could the text FP be "typed" in the document in *exactly* the same greyish color ink? Note that the document has other colors -- the Providence "logo" in blue and yellow, and the text in upper left in blue -- but these are both different than the unusual greyish tone of both the signature and FP letters. I can't think of any explanation why the FP would be the same color as the signature, unless it were a copy/graphic file pasted in or inserted electronically. This would imply that this is not CBJ's original signature on the letter, but a copy. That would be important.

I don't think CBJ's silence can be construed as validating the letter, either -- she did not issue the letter herself, and the only thing we know is that she is totally incommunicado on this subject; we don't know why. I think that the signature and FP is a more important clue than I had realized! I would like to have everyone (respectfully) put much more pressure on CBJ to make an unambiguous public statement --"yes, I wrote and signed the November 3rd letter, and I have first-hand knowledge that Sarah is truly Trig's birth mother." Unfortunately, as it stands now, I do not believe CBJ is being honest, which saddens me.

Anonymous said...

I would like to urge everyone who is irritated by the strange details in the medical report signes by CBJ to contact press/media outlets and describe to them where the issues lie, demanding from them to investigate.

Here we have an official document which contains several mysterious issues, and nobody from the MSM seems to care (hot potato...?).

This has to change.


Anonymous said...

The thing about the signature is that it is made to look like it's an original signature, but it isn't. I know that electronic signatures are used all the time; but the change in color of FP indicates that this was not simply a matter of inserting a graphics file of the signature. I agree that the MSM needs to investigate this (or a private eye). I continue to suspect that the delay in producing this letter, at the same time as the McCain campaign was saying nasty things about Sarah (diva, whack job, doesn't listen to anyone, even her family) may indicate the two are linked -- eg that something to do with the release of the letter led the disagreements and a campaign staffer calling her a whack job.