Tuesday, December 9, 2008

A bit more about the Necklace

I am going to make one more comment on the "necklace" pictures, posted last evening. Ironically, as I was working on this, a comment came in which expressed my questions and feelings on this perfectly.

On necklaces like this, the pendant - in this case a cross - is almost always "free floating." In other words, you can slide the pendant back and forth on the chain. (How many times have we all seen people "futzing" with a necklace like this?) Looking at the cross carefully, I believe that oblong loop on the top of it is one that will allow it to move back and forth on the chain.

First, I agree that the "without" picture is much more grainy and the chain might not be clearly visible. But the cross will be. The cross is large enough that even with the blurry aspects it should show up. If it doesn't, there are only two possibilities. The first, of course, is that it's gone. The second is that the cross has slipped either under her collar on the right (as we face the picture, this would be HER left) or it has slipped behind the fold of the collar on the left (HER right.)

Fine. This is possible. But the length of the chain has to be consistent in both pictures. If you say the necklace is there, you must agree that the length of the chain can't change. Play with a short necklace yourself. In the first "With" picture, the chain follows the line of her collar. The chain and her collar are very nearly parallel lines. (See, I took Geometry in High School!) I printed out a few copies of this picture, and tried to engineer where the cross would have to be if it can't be seen. If the cross is hidden on one side or the other, the chain on that side shortens. Then, the chain on the other side gets longer - and the angle sharper. Instead of following the line of her collar, it would cut across her neck, sharply. And I believe that it would be visible, even with the blurriness of her skin in the shot. Thus, I stand by my statement that the necklace isn't there.

I also agree, however, with the commentor in the last post, who asks, rather plaintively, What does this mean? My only answer is "I don't know." I really don't. IF there is some skulduggery with these pictures (and given the combination of their timely appearance precisely on the day they were needed (a lot, come to think about it, like Bristol's timely five month pregnancy) coupled with the fact that no one has yet stated they he or she was the photographer) one would be a fool to not at least consider that possibility. But I can't put together any scenario. If one picture is real, and the other is created from it, then the necklace should be there. If the pictures were taken at different times, you can't explain the identical nature of her hair. Honestly, I don't know.

I am turning these pictures over to a forensic Photoshop expert. The report that I will get will be on a letterhead, signed by a real person, who will give an opinion that would be comparable to something he would give in court. I commit to all those who read here, that regardless of what the opinion says, I will publish it in full on this blog.

63 comments:

Anonymous said...

If it doesn't, there are only two possibilities. The first, of course, is that it's gone. The second is that the cross has slipped either under her collar on the right (as we face the picture, this would be HER left) or it has slipped behind the fold of the collar on the left (HER right.)

Actually, there is a third possibility, which, upon quick review in Photoshop may reveal the Occam's Razor: the necklace was photoshopped out.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

bottom line, the pics look funny and therefore will continue to be looked at!

Delta said...

Let us know if you need help paying for the expert. I'd chip in just for the satisfaction of KNOWING something one way or the other. Anything concrete is better than driving myself crazy obsessing over this.

Anonymous said...

I don't see Palin's hair as identical in both pictures. In the 'head on' photo her hair touches her neck, especially on her right side; in the other photo her hair doesn't fall that way.

I know a lot of people whose hair always looks the same. It falls a certain way and it never changes.

Anonymous said...

I trust you. I'm with you: that smoking gun photo is real and that belly never produced that baby 18 days later. This is fascinating, the more so because adopting a special needs child, for whatever reason, would seem to be a political plus for SP. Under what circumstances is it not a plus? If Bristol is the mother- odd how we haven't seen pictures of her since the election- it's strange that concealing that pregnancy was important, while with Bristol's alleged current pregnancy, she was thrown under the bus. I keep trying to figure out why the need for secrecy. Of course, NOW seh has to keep on with her story or be branded a liar, but we all know she already is a liar so what's the problem there? No: the whole situation is weird.

Ivy Freeborn

Scott said...

Although I suspect the necklace is "not absent" in the second photo, the expert opinion via your efforts will be booster for publicity and attention this curious case of Sarah deserves and thereby more research from mainstream journalistic sources. Hopefully the media will also dig more into her other aspects of public life, including Troopergate.

Great job!

Anonymous said...

Audrey you are above and beyond approach and your morning analysis of this matter is outstanding.

Keep up the fantastic work - the truth will out as they say.

palin pregnancy truth said...

On signed letterhead, it could hold up in court!!! Audrey, you are Palin's worst nightmare. We'll get this to break.

Anonymous said...

Audrey,

Save your money on the Photoshop expert. The necklace is there in the blurry photo, except the angle makes the collar hide the cross and pixilaton blurrs the gold chain. But myself and others do see it.

I would withdraw this issue because it is an unnecessary distraction, and stipulate that these photos are from April 13. They are only proof that SP 'looked' pregnant, not that she was. And we know she admitted to intentionally disguising her appearance, and seems to be continuing to do so with big coats and such. If she disguised her appearance purportedly to hide her pregnancy, she may actually have been disguising her appearance to protect the lie that she wasn't.

This is a standard, and compelling line of argument and cross-examination, should we ever get a chance.

Dangerous

wayofpeace said...

for all of you GREAT photo-sleuths here, in particular patrick, kathleen and audrey:

in 1966 a movie came out called BLOW UP. have any of you seen it?

it's a murder mystery that involves a london fashion photographer who inadvertently captures a clue with his camera.

the great vanessa redgrave is on it.

anyway, i recommend it highly.

something to do when taking a break from your sleuthing/blogging here.

sjk said...

I belive this is a non issue

Anonymous said...

Comment at 6.20

Are you suggesting that the necklace could have been photoshopped out in the first picture and that they forgot to do so in the second? Where are you going with this line of argument?

Alex said...

You go, Audrey! In any real detective case, there many more dead ends and wild theories than real bits of evidence. That's true in any creative process. It's true in baseball strike/hit averages. It takes courage to post this information. By putting forth everything, Audrey will hit on something because the truth is out there. And it's waiting to be discovered.

I refer again to the link posted yesterday about the other governor who gave birth while in office and the media coverage of her birth and the babies. It was totally normal, and what you'd expect from a public figure doing something as unusual as giving birth in office. For a Media Momma like Palin to not milk her pregnancy and birth with credible and abundant photo ops is strange in itself. (Even Nicole Kidman is shot lifting her shirt and exposing her belly.)

Audrey is chipping at the mountain, and I welcome all chips -- and all ideas.

Necklace or not, chip on!

And yes, the two photos look odd to me. For one thing, where is the scarf? In EVERY single pregnant photo, she's wearing a scarf-- but not here. A scarf would have hidden the cross necklace, but "--oooops! There's that pesky religious icon. Should we do something about it while I'm photoshopping the rest of this bugger? Don't want to offend our Jewish and Muslim and Hindu friends. . ."

Anonymous said...

Or maybe the cross was shifted all the way to the back of her neck, leaving only the chain in front. I hope not, because that would not have been an accident; it would have to have been intentional. I wouldn't want to think that she would intentionally hide the cross. But I do think this has to be included as one of the possibilities.

DM

Anonymous said...

While I am firmly in the "she didn't birth Trig" camp, there could be an innocent explanation for the necklace issue..... maybe, just maybe, the chain broke between the pictures..... coincidence? yes, but we can be completely right about the faux pregnancy and wrong about this detail, and I'd hate for the entire theory to be abandoned over something that may just be coincidence.

I just don't think that you can determine anything conclusive from the missing necklace issue.

Yellowgirl

ABS said...

Audrey, you have my support either way the necklace issue falls.

wayofpeace said...

great observation ALEX;

the creative process meanders sometimes into dead ends and false leads: that is part of a GENUINE chase/investigation.

following the baseball analogy:

a great hitter misses 7 times out of 10!

i believe audrey is doing better than that.

AUDREY, keep swinging: soon you will hit it out of the park!

Anonymous said...

I don't know if anyone else has caught this, but it looks like erik99559 (of Flickr fame and this photo: http://www.palindeception.com/blog/uploaded_images/lastday-752307.jpg) is holding the video camera in a picture on the AK gov website welcoming Palin back to AK just last month:

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/large_photo.php?id=202

Check out the dimples! Also, the guy standing behind Palin, next to the Lt Gov, looks a lot like the guy holding the camera in the other erik99559 photo.

Audrey said...

It's a very good point about the scarf - one that I intend to expand on in a post very soon.

Palin adopted a very distinctive look shortly before she announced her pregnancy in early March. She began wearing jackets and floppy scarves, (or on a few occasions) winter coats in indoor settings. In spite of her saying that she was engaging in "fashion assisted camouflage" during January and February, careful examination of her dressing patterns show that when she was really dressing oddly was after she announced the pregnancy. When theoretically there should have been no more need to conceal anything.

That is another oddity about these two photos and one that should not escape notice. There's really only three times in her entire 44 day "pregnancy" that we see her sans scarf (or winter coat.) The first is on the day of the picture in the Juneau Museum (the "smoking gun" picture) the second is one day of the Elan Frank shoot, and the third is represented by these two photos.

It's been suggested, and I believe it is accurate, that she never expected the Frank video to be seen until months after it was shot. The Juneau Museum photo was a unstaged impromptu shot, which could easily never have come to light.

In virtually every public appearance she made during the pregnancy (when she believed it would be seen at the time), she appears to be trying to conceal her midsection. When she's in Texas, five days after these photos in the hall, we're again back to the same black blazer and floppy scarf.

So that's another thing that's just a bit odd about these photos. This is the sharpest maternity outfit I've seen her wearing. It's the single time you see her looking professional, smart, AND pregnant. And no one saw it until almost five months after Trig was born.

HMMMMMM.

Anonymous said...

Keep at it, Audrey!

In the previous post, a commenter mentioned the squished look of Palin and Gusty and the height of the cameraman. It's pretty clear that that first photo with Gusty and the mike could only have been taken by someone who is taller than the cameraman. Which could be the guy on the left in the second pic?

Anyone found any distinguishing marks on any of the camera gear? There is tape on the back of what looks like a walkie-talkie on the cameraman's bag.

I agree with the logic (and nice geometry skills) re the necklace. But, I do agree it's possible it was Photoshopped out.

And, I've been thinking about something else. Maybe Trig was actually born week+ before. I saw a post somewhere a few days ago (sorry, don't have link) with video at the Palin's home where Todd was asking if Bristol had called and both Todd and Sarah seemed anxious. If Trig isn't Sarah's and had been born week+ earlier, it might explain a) why Palin all of a sudden went from "possibly pregnant" to "really pregnant" (with help) in photos, b) (if Bristol is the mom) why Bristol wouldn't look like she gave birth a few days after 4/18, and c) the whole story about the flight back from Texas, etc. As it is, Trig supposed was born at 36 weeks. If born at Palin's 34/35 weeks, it's INCREDIBLY unlikely any mom, governor or not, would leave a <36 week preemie who had DS to go give a speech. No one would buy that. And, you could argue any politician wouldn't risk the backlash of leaving a preemie DS baby to further her career.

Btw, not sure I buy the argument that she wanted to hide the pregnancy for fear it would hurt her VP chances. There wasn't much chance of her being selected before May anyway, at which point there is a baby.

Silver Salmon said...

Honestly, I don't understand the furor about the necklace. Personally, it doesn't prove anything one way or the other to me.

I do think the EXIF data might can be useful for something else.

Both photos were taken in the Capitol. We have a definitive location for photo #2 - outside Room 206.

Where exactly was the first one taken? There is plaque behind Palin's shoulder but with my limited abilities, I cannot read what it is or the room number that is barely peeking out by the door.

Whomever's office this is (in #1) isn't as important as the Secretary of State and the person who resides in 204 (in #2). They have their names beside their offices.

The hallway looks narrower in the first photo, but that could be because of the camera angle.

I want to know if it was physically possible for Palin to get from the location of the first photo to the second and be able to strike a pose.

If it was impossible, I don't know what it exactly means, but it'd be another one for the "not on the up-and-up" category.

palin pregnancy truth said...

Is the second cameraman in the background the same as the one in the Gusty pic?

http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/govpalinreturn_nov7_p03.jpg

It seems like Carpenter and McAllister are already too close with Palin to divulge anything. Maybe this cameraman would be willing to step forward, particularly if the Enquirer threw some money his way?

Anonymous said...

I want to start by saying that this is the first site I visit in the morning (I can't get enough). You're going to expose her - it's just a matter of time.

With that in mind, I have to agree with a previous comment from Dangerous. First, I think that the necklace is probably there but the resolution or angle is making it impossible to see. Second, even if it isn't there, what are you proving and how does it benefit the case for Trig not being her baby? And third, the money and time spent on this could be used for much more productive things.

This site/blog are both amazing but I feel that the further you go on this issue, the more ammunition your giving people to dismiss you as "truthers". The is the first time that I'm worried about the perceived credibility of the blog and it's readers/commenters.

Emily said...

Has anyone compared the size of her tummy in the Elan Frank picture to these?

The picture was ostensibly taken about a week before these pics....and to my eye, her stomach, while pregnant-looking, is much smaller than these.

She can barely get her arm around her stomach in these, yet in the Frank picture, she definitely would be able to.

Also, here's a link to a page about a fitness trainer and her pregnancy:

http://tinyurl.com/6mgo83

It talks about the fitness regime she was on during her pregnancy, and the size of her child, which was just barely larger than Trig.

And it has a picture of her, looking much more pregnant than Sarah ever did, despite her being likely just as fit as Sarah.

It's the little things that don't add up.

Like the Newsweek interview, done a few days before she announced her pregnancy, when she was 7 months pregnant. Throughout the interview, she had her legs crossed, and she was leaning forward.

Isn't it rather difficult to cross your legs at this stage in pregnancy, regardless of belly size? I thought by then your joints start loosening up to prepare for delivery.

Anonymous said...

There you go, Audrey. Back on track.

SP has admitted concealing her situation. That admission automatically puts her stated motives in question as well.

"The 6-week pregnancy of Sarah Palin" should be the name of this investigation. It encapsulates what the evidence indicates.

Dangerous

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 8:40 AM

Yes, those definitely do look like the same two guys. Both have been identified: McAllister and Carpenter. Has anyone contacted them for comments on the pix?

KaJo said...

To follow on what Anonymous at 6:30 am said above, about Palin's hair laying differently -- I agree:

I'm suggesting a reason for the different appearance. Suppose the back of the chain might have caught in several hairs at the nape of her neck and caused her pain, and she tugged at the necklace to free it, thus rearranging the lay of the front of the necklace?

As was noted, Palin's free-flowing hair on the flag-pin side of her face seems to be laying slightly differently, more under her neckline than on her lapel, in the "after" picture. The necklace -- delicate and lightweight -- might then have settled differently on her upper chest.

I really believe the necklace is a non-issue, and that Audrey is right in going on from here to look more closely at the series of clothes disguises Palin employs from late fall 2007 to -- especially -- the first 3 months of 2008.

Perhaps a "lineup" of all the available pictures could be posted, cropped and adjusted to the subject, Palin, being equal size in all.

Scott said...

An Anonymous said in the comments above:

"Btw, not sure I buy the argument that she wanted to hide the pregnancy for fear it would hurt her VP chances. There wasn't much chance of her being selected before May anyway, at which point there is a baby."

Actually, there is. Back then in early 2007 when Obama was making waves, the republican thinktank were looking for a young, fresh and inspiring republican version...and they zeroed in on the new highly popular gov. of Alaska. Soon after Palin had a high profile meeting with conservative propagandists, in Alaska. (there were several mainstream articles, during and days after the general election, on Palin's popularity with the GOP establishment long before McCain was the nominee, and how McCain had to compromise with them in even considering her.)

Anonymous said...

Audrey,

Please stop.

This is making this site look nutty.

The cross could be easily obscured by the collar.

This is NOT the only photo of Palin looking very pregnant in April. Countless journalists and legislators are on the record stating she looked pregnant, so there is no motive for her to engineer a second photo. None whatsoever.

So there is very very little evidence of malfeasance here, and no good reason for Palin to go through the extensive trouble of producing this photograph.

This is going into crazy territory to scrutinize something this mundane.

Anonymous said...

Off thread. I wonder if Sarah is a little nervous. The Gov in IL. was tapped by FBI for his lies and firings of editors at the tribune.
More importantly taking money for PE Obama's senate seat.

Maybe they are already working undercover in Alaska?

Alex said...

In these photos, Palin looks like a fashionable, professional pregnant woman. In the others, with big coats and flowy scarfs, she looks more like a housewife (or fishwife.) The "scene" if this were from a film, would indicate a very successful, saavy woman at work. In all the other "pregnancy" photos, she looks (to me) disheveled or a bit out of control-- (her oversized scarves are distracting and they weren't worn fashionably the way scarves are seen on nyc streets.) In the KTLA interview, I simply couldn't see the "fashionable" or "hot" governor of AK everybody talked about.

That's just another reason why these photos feel different to us intuitive types.

I also really like the comment about knowing whose offices and where they're located. Another reason why posting questions leads to answers, or more questions, or the truth.

Anonymous said...

Some have found Palin's apparent pregnancy credible by comparing her size (clothed, of course) to first pregnancies of younger women. This supports the Bristol theory. When Palin decided to cover for someone, she figured out what size to be and how much padding to add by imitating the one who was actually pregnant.

She had to play catch up gradually enough to be believable, thus the nail-in-coffin photo that wasn't believable in retrospect. Hard to believe she wasn't careful not to get smaller in Dallas after this necklace picture.

This story is a great whodunnit. I am hooked. Why doesn't Palin unhook me and others here with real proof? We may not vote for her, but we're not all out to destroy her political future. -B.

Marcy said...

It isn't the necklace that is baffling and infuriating: it's the sum total of dozens of unnecessary puzzles. I believe they have been created by a deranged, power hungry woman who knows she has lied, and lied and lied. She is creating possible deniabilities for each of those lies. She hasn't considered that not even her worst enemies have yet postulated some of them!

So if each new puzzle is considered a possible coverup for another lie, we are simply nibbling away at an enormous splinter-ball of deception. Thank you, Audrey and Morgan, and Patrick and Kathleen, for sharing the results with us all. I believe this woman is truly dangerous: if allowed to hold any real power, she will be a destroyer. Cheering for you all, grammy

Anonymous said...

Here's a hypothesis. Let's see if we can shoot if full of holes, or if it holds water.

Let's assume the two photos were not taken in April, but around August 25. Why? Because Palin was about to fly to Sedona, Arizona, where she would be interviewed by McCain on Wednesday the 27th for the VP job. She probably got the invitation to fly there around Monday 25th. At that point, she and her new press secretary, Bill McAllister, knew that if she was offered and accepted the job, the thin, unconvincing photographic evidence suggesting she was pregnant that was good enough for Alaska just would not cut it under the intense scrutiny of national media. They needed something better, and they needed it fast. So McAllister calls on a few old friends in the media to help stage those pics around Tuesday 26th. It's risky, because Sarah has to don that darned pregnancy thing in the statehouse where the pics will be taken; so they have to do this at night, when the building is pretty much empty. And just three people besides Sarah are involved: McAllister, Gusty, and the tall guy, the KTUU cameraman. So Gusty takes the pic of the cameraman, Palin and McAllister in the one shot, and the cameraman takes the still photo of McAllister acting like he is shooting video of Gusty pretending to interview Palin. (I have written before about how the video shooter looks a lot like McAllister). And notice the box on the floor behind Palin and Gusty - it's a good size for holding a fake-pregnancy suit.

OK - shoot that scenario full of holes. I think it stands a good chance of being right.

Brad

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 9:38 AM

Thanks. Since the caption on the Flickr page was "Myself, Governor Palin, Press Secretary McAllister" I had assumed (you know what happens when you do that) that he was actually erik99559, and so was surprised to have seen him in the more recent photo!

ajesquire said...

I'm curious what the photo-shop forensic expert will find. I suspect he'll say that the matter is inconclusive.

Between the grainy-ness, the compressed depth of field from the angle (as opposed to the head-on shot), the direction in which the light was hitting her, there are a number of reason for not being able to conclude with certainty that the necklace is absent from the second picture.

The pictures also seem to be in different locations of whatever building they were in. This would provide more opportunity for things like the necklace sliding to one side or another, or even falling off.

Anonymous said...

Brad,
I wouldn't be surprised. She looks distinctly uneasy in those photos - as if she was afraid that someone would walk around the corner and catch her!

However, I don't think that is McAllister holding the video camera.

jeanie said...

Re - the difference between Jane Swift (former MA governor) and publicity about her delivery while in office and Sarah Palin's lack thereof is definitely weird. It is also a direct contradiction to the governor's current website:

http://gov.state.ak.us/

There's STILL a big banner and link with Trig letters eight months after the delivery. Now that is really weird! Who leaves what amounts to a birth announcement up - in pastels and completely at odds with the rest of the professional state governor's website, no less - for eight months?? I'd like to know when that "spotlight" was really posted...

luna1580 said...

audrey,

the necklace is not important.

as someone pointed out, i never have seen a photo of her at an event with a cross on, which is weird since she's an evangelical fundie, but maybe she thinks it offends someone. for the record, hardly any members of other faiths are offended by small, private crosses -they know christianity exists guys (large crosses on public display in courtrooms and schools are different than jewelry).

but maybe sarah is so ignorant of people of other faiths she doesn't know that, and took it off for the TV camera. maybe the chain did break. maybe it was distracting on film and she wanted the emphasis on her face. or like i said at the beginning, maybe it just faded into the low-res blur.

audrey if you think there's something to this pic and want to spend money on it, i support you -but the necklace itself shouldn't be the thing, it makes you look like you're chasing shadows.

oh, if "it's the same sarah" anon is reading, i answered your "lift and tilt" question in detail at comment 65 of the first "necklace mystery" post.
the short answer is: no, it's not possible.

luna

Anonymous said...

@anon 7:48

Are you suggesting that the necklace could have been photoshopped out in the first picture and that they forgot to do so in the second?

No, not even close.

Where are you going with this line of argument?

It's not really a line of argument, at all. I am only suggesting that when dealing with digitized photos off of random places like Flickr, anything is possible. Audrey gave a false dilemma: it's either this, or it's that.

No, there is a third possibility that must be considered, possibly revealed by just a 2-minute once over in Photoshop, at the already-altered, cropped .gif made from the Gusty picture: that the necklace has been photoshopped out.

Anonymous said...

comment at 2.27

Here is the link to the original photo uploaded by erik99559 on 31st August 2008.

http://flickr.com/photos/30076181@N02/2814199887/

If you zoom into it yourself you will see that this photo was not altered by Patrick or anyone else. It is ludicrous to suggest so.

Any photoshopping that may possibly have taken place before the photo was uploaded on the 31st August 2008 by erik99559 is of course another matter.

Anonymous said...

@Brad (11:57A): Not sure you think that McAllister is holding the camera in the shot with Gusty ... unless you think he actually changed between the two shots that were supposedly 3 minutes apart.

The guy in the shot with Gusty bears a strong resemblance to the cameraman in the background (next to the Lt. Gov) in this shot:

http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/govpalinreturn_nov7_p03.jpg

Your theory still sounds plausible. Just may be one more person involved.

Anonymous said...

Alex at 8.09: "I refer again to the link posted yesterday about the other governor who gave birth while in office and the media coverage of her birth and the babies. It was totally normal, and what you'd expect from a public figure doing something as unusual as giving birth in office. For a Media Momma like Palin to not milk her pregnancy and birth with credible and abundant photo ops is strange in itself. "
You are totally correct. Especially, since she had - what 80%? approval ratings at that time! She was the darling of Alaska, and the darling of Alaska would have gotten tons and tons of free coverage from this birth! The Special Needs kids parents would have flocked around her for support and help.
Something smells fishy!

Anonymous said...

Okay, just a thought:

Use the forensic expert to tell WHEN the photos were shot.

Someone posted an exif tool, and I used it on 3 photos I knew the shoot dates of. The exif data was wrong on 2 of 3. Someone else said you have to set something on your camera to have exif be correct. So that suggests one could manipulate things to fake a desired (but inaccurate) exif date.

When I looked at the white box that shows the exif data for these two photos, I was surprised that they are only 3 min apart. That's not really very long to move from one spot to another, rearrange equipment and people, take aim, tell someone to move a little, etc. So then I wondered about the date.

I also noticed that SP looked a lot better here than in other preg photos, as noted in other posts. And it reminded me of something from my own life. When I learned I was pregnant I went to buy some maternity clothes, and the salesperson gave me a fake belly so I could see about eventual fit. I looked TERRIFIC!

Unfortunately, I never looked that great when I was big pregnant, for all the usual reasons: weight gain in odd places, my belly was not as cute as the fake one, I didn't have the energy for perfect hair/makeup all the time when pregnant, I was exhausted and/or nauseated, etc. And I never see SP looking tired during the PG time. Hell, even Princess Diana was photographed snoozing in parliament under her mega-diamond tiara when she was first PG.

My point leads me to speculate again on what others have already said:

--She DOES look better in this set of shots than in some others.

--The necklace/earrings issue (if there ends up being a difference) just adds to the thought that more time elapsed between photos than 3 min -- maybe a bathroom break, maybe trying out different looks (with/without the jewelry) -- 3 min apart is too little.

--The 3-min difference issue in the photos leads me to think the month/day date might have also have been invented (and it was actually shot in Aug).

--The sandals on the reporter on a cold day (whereas they would be fine in Aug).

--The non-appearance of the video interview that was supposedly being shot that day.

--Can anyone figure out SP's hair length in March vs Aug from the other photos?

--There must be other internal evidence that we don't see.

If the date could be established as not being correct, not being in March, that would be a v big deal.

I thought I posted a note earlier (but I don't see it up) saying I was sure I saw a bigger (higher res) photo of the hall+boxes photo in flickr when I was surfing through it a few days ago. Stupidly, I didn't copy it, and when I looked for an hour last night I could not find it. I'll keep looking, but maybe someone else could look also. I seem to recall it was about 600 wide. And in focus. Sure would help to find that one.

Well, I'm with Alex -- one person's dead end can spark another person's productive thought.

--Amy

Anonymous said...

Ooops, never mind about my flickr point -- now that I clicked on the small photos in the blog I see that the large version must be what I saw in Flickr. Just forget I drove up, okay?

--Amy

Anonymous said...

There is a photo on the homepage of the governor's official website right now, showing a person who looks like the mystery-cameraman in the blurry photo -- see
http://gov.state.ak.us/
large_photo.php?id=201

Anonymous said...

OK - my hypothesis above (11:57 a.m.) that the 2 pics were actually staged in late August - would work with another person in on the scam - i.e., someone to hold the video camera besides McAllister (but I still think it is probably him).

My theory helps explain why the pics did not surface before August 31 - they just did not exist very long before that. Also, the reason they came into being is more understandable that way (recall that no one claims credit for taking the pics). Moreover, the fact that no other photos exist of her looking anywhere near that pregnant makes more sense. Finally, it no longer seems like such a coincidence that McAllister, her future press secretary, just happens to appear in one of the pics.

Is there any way to find out if Gusty and the video guy from KTUU happen to belong to Palin's church?

Brad

Anonymous said...

@3:10

Any photoshopping that may possibly have taken place before the photo was uploaded on the 31st August 2008 by erik99559 is of course another matter.

Now you're starting to catch on...

Isn't the entire premise that that particular photo itself has perhaps been altered/staged?

The only real point to be made here is, how far are people willing to suspend their belief or disbelief when it comes to digitized pictures in a Flickr photo accounts?

Luna said:

as someone pointed out, i never have seen a photo of her at an event with a cross on, which is weird since she's an evangelical fundie, but maybe she thinks it offends someone.

I've seen her in big cross earrings. Pre VP nomination, I believe but I will have to check on that.

Brad asked:

Is there any way to find out if Gusty and the video guy from KTUU happen to belong to Palin's church?

Which one? She seems to attend or church-hop to several.

Anonymous said...

Comment @ 7.09

My original questions were rhetorical as it is often the best way to find out real meaning.

I happen to agree with you that the photos were staged/photoshopped before they were uploaded.

It is possible that they were altered by erik but it is equally possible that they were altered by a professional and then passed onto him to place on flickr.

Of course that leads us to the question of why? Why alter them? And why are so many Palin fanatics taking part in the photos? Gusty and McCallister (sp ?) are well known Palin apologists.

Looking at a photo is akin to watching a performance on stage - we enter into the magic that someone wants us to accept. But reality tells us that the person weaving the magic has an agenda - not so many people want to accept that fact because they have been conditioned to accept images as fact. They are conditioned to avoid asking questions.

And our media is absolutely complicit in perpetuating this myth. Sad huh?

Anonymous said...

Regardless of the necklace, both of these photos look suspicious. Particularly the one with the three people in it. It is entirely possible that the picture of the people was taken somewhere else and Photoshopped onto a photo of the hallway in the state capitol. Why? Who knows.

One other point: Carpenter (the fellow on the left of the three-person shot) lost a fair amount of weight between that photo and the "Sarah Return" photo in which he's holding nthe video camera.

Anonymous said...

@Brad/5:29P On the other hand, it seems just as plausible that it was not McAllister holding the camera and instead it was a KTVA cameraman there with Gusty (McAllister would have been there with Carpenter).

In fact, if you look carefully at the camera held by the grey-haired guy in this shot:

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/photos/govpalinreturn_nov7_p03.jpg

and compare to the camera in the Gusty shot, they look the same (same type of flash, same position of the walkie-talkie).

A Different Patrick said...

I'm a very experienced Photoshop user, myself, but like others here, not the kind of expertise that would stand up in court. I don't take a lot of digital pictures myself, but I some education in traditional photography, and video, but most of the image editing I do is with other people's images or 3D digital renders. I do have a solid understanding of pixels vs dpi and native image resolution, and it turns out those issues may be important to this discussion.

I'm not sure who else may have mentioned some of these, I tried to read all of the comments in the two necklace threads, but I tended to skip through to the technical comments, so please bear with me.

First off, I'm not sure if we have established with certainty who "eric99559" really is, but his Flickr profile and the tech and camera info bring up some big problems.

Number one, these are the only two photos this user has uploaded to Flickr, ever, and he seems to have uploaded one of them twice - the three amigos shot was uploaded seperately under the set labeled "Juneau"- but all of the uploads seem to share the same characteristics. It is, particularly given the other points I'm about to make, extremely strange that these are the only photos this user has EVER uploaded- it's almost so implausible as to argue against conspiracy, because of the old "who could possibly overlook that while planning this" argument.

Number two, the photos were, according to the EXIF on Flickr, taken with a Fujifilm FinePix S9000- which is a fairly nice 9 - count 'em, NINE- megapixel camera with a whole bunch of bells and whistles, a hefty price tag, and as you can see on this page it is pretty hefty itself, basically an old style SLR that you would have to carry in a bag- not a pocket digital camera by any means. This is a fairly professional piece of equipment that someone would have had to bring to this event for this purpose and not simply happen to have on them.

http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Fujifilm%20FinePix%20S9000%20Digital%20Camera:1992909130:page=details

The camera was manually set not to flash, as the photographer seems to have used the same light that the TV camera was set to use, and from that I believe that the angle of the first photo is taken is from just to the right of the TV cameraman in the second photo, where that TV light would be directly behind the still photographer- accounting for the bright and straight forward lighting of the first photo despite not using the flash.

The point of this is that the shot was taken by a pro, and the taking of these stills shots was very deliberately set-up and accomplished. The account they were uploaded to is clearly NOT a professional photographer's account, or we would be able to download them at their true maximum resolution because-

Number three, these were taken on "Normal" setting on a 9 megapixel camera, giving them a native resolution of 3488 x 2616 pixels at 72 dpi, again, according to the EXIF on Flickr (and for those wondering dpi is about printing size, not native- or absolute- resolution, all images your computer displays on a monitor have a native resolution of 72 dpi, which is then resampled to simulate zoom in or out). These are LARGE images, although not as large as a nine megapixel camera could potentially make, and the images that were uploaded to Flickr are much larger than the ones we can download from this free Flickr account.

These images have been resized by Flickr after upload and the "large" size option, for viewing or download, becomes limited to 1024 resolution. If the Flickr account was a Pro account, there could be an option to download the originals, depending on the wishes of the uploader. I would like to ask, however, why Patrick changed the size of shot 2- as his is slightly smaller than 1024 resolution, even though both shots are set as and available at 1024 pixels from the eric99559 account? There is absolutely no difference between either that I can notice, but it's not advisable to do such things when authenticity is the question at hand.

So, at this point what we have is a professional, or at least semi-pro photog taking rather high resolution photos and then creating a free flickr account to upload these two photos only, ever, including all EXIF and camera data, but yet having the date improperly set in the camera's memory. It doesn't quite add up, and it's very convenient that the only versions of the photos available to download are shrunken, preventing analysis of the full size, raw pixel data of the originals. I'm certain a digital image expert would want that.

Further, the man to Palin's right in the first photo is quite clearly the same man holding a TV camera in the Nov 7th return to Alaska pic, and the TV cameraman in the second "eric" photo is clearly the same TV cameraman in the back of the Nov 7 photo- you can see that he is carrying exactly the same TV camera/light set-up. I'm suspicious of this, in itself, until we can identify the man from the first shot, because he was wearing a suit in this photo and certainly doesn't appear to be a TV cameraman. Is it possible Palin got used to having a whole bunch of TV cameras greet her, and they used a staffer to fake another cameraman? He is using two mics on the camera, but has his headphones off, and his light is not only off, but it is badly aimed as compared to the other cameramen.

A Different Patrick, Again said...

And, finally, I'll close with my theory regarding the necklace/jaw shadow in shot 2. It is important to note that Palin is standing almost directly toward that TV light, while the reporter and cameraman are standing at an angle- it does change the angle of shadows and the glow or "bloom" of the resulting reflected light, and the degree to which it creates blur. This does not in any way explain, however, why the photographer's focus is so crazy, crazy off. Palin is a bit further from the lens than the reporter, and the reporter is fairly out of focus herself, but there is simply no reason that anyone working that camera who knew what they were doing would allow the autofocus to set itself according to the cameraman's arm, even though the focus of the shot clearly shows that this happened.

This is someone who is using a very nice camera, set to take a large format shot, who knew to turn their flash off, yet they seem to not know how to simply point the autofocus box at Palin, who is the main subject of the picture, before reframing the image. Usually this can be accomplished without setting the camera to manual focus by simply holding the shutter button halfway down while centered on the main subject, then re-aim the camera to the desired composition without letting the button up. The autofocus feature worked this way back on my chemical film Minolta Maxxum, it's been around for a long time. It's made all the more curious in that anyone who used this camera at these setting would want to take the best shot possible, and could easily refocus and snap another if they screwed up the first. Coming away with this shot would be sub-par for a person going through all the other effort they show, not to mention to then upload this one.

As I look at that neck shadow, the desire for that "soft focus" seems to become clear, cover up how normal and thin Palin's face/neck look- the way they look in shot one. But to my eyes, soft focus doesn't explain everything that is wrong with the glow on Palin's lower neck and the shadow under her jaw. Sampling the color numbers and comparing the range of values from shadow to light, from Palin and from the reporter, seems to show that Palin's jaw shadow is considerably lighter than it should be. Palin is straight toward the light, which makes it harder for ambient light to fill her jaw shadow compared to the reporter's neck, which has a greater surface area and better angle to reflect ambient light.

But the single most suspicious aspect of this whole photo, the thing that has been gnawing at me since I first saw both of these images together, is the part of the shadow directly under Palin's chin. It is simply WAAAY too light, and looks like it could have been expertly smudged larger to create the "double chin" effect, especially since it seems to even turn transparent where it overlays her hair and even part of her jacket. The light source is still at an angle to Palin's face, and the shadow directly under her chin should still be the darkest part of that shadow, unless she not only has a "pregnant face", but has the face of Jabba the Hutt. The entire area of that shadow is very light and has too little range in itself- no part becomes as dark as some part should be.

Reflected light from her chest could account for some added under neck glow, but not this amount, and the blue spill through part of that shadow- which seems to form a triangle demarkating her actual chin/jaw- seems a dead giveaway. I believe most of the image of the necklace was genuinely lost to that actual glow, but that it was also boosted and lightened to further cover up the neck work, and as importantly, to lighten the horizontal neck wrinkles and the definition of the neck muscles at their base.

These things looked questionable to me from the start, in addition to her body language, posture, and the shape of her "bump", but once I saw what her neck ACTUALLY looked like in shot one, it was undeniable. It is my personal opinion, as lay as it may be, that there is no way that the woman in shot one could possibly produce that double chin shadow/blur in shot 2- no way! Just look at how much her chin naturally protrudes from her naturally thin neck, and just how wide the outside "points" of her jaw are compared to her neck. Shot one, chiseled Palin jaw we all know. Shot two, suddenly morphed into Jabba despite having basically the same head/neck angle.

And before I forget, I am also convinced that she is wearing a padded suit by the change in her bump between images. Her hands remain in almost exactly the same position, but her arms are drawn closer in when she is crowded next to the two men. If you look toward the "belly button" bump, and measure where the center of the furthest outward extension of the bump is, it is considerably higher in shot one than in shot two. I believe it is the effect of drawing here arms in to accomodate the men that forces the pad to float higher up her torso. Her arms are bent at the same angles, hands still clasped the same, yet the bump floats.

Check out the amount of shadow on the lower part of her bump in shot one, and remember that Palin has hardly moved or turned between the two shots because the same light is hitting her from basically the same angle (certainly the exact same vertical angle). Audrey would know better, but to my knowledge there is really nothing that can explain how an actual baby bump could uniformly float that much higher merely from the pressure of her arms pushing inwards. Even the "valley", the shadow between her breasts and the bump gets much deeper, again, even though the light doesn't move.

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned that yet, but the "floating bump" is damn convincing to me. Apologies for such long-winded comments.

A different Patrick, who commented here a couple times in the past.

Audrey said...

Other Patrick, thanks for these posts.

Would you email me please at:

info@palindeception.com

Thanks

Anonymous said...

Anon. December 9, 2008 4:53 PM :In that picture, taken November7, 2008, she looks pregnant - more pregnant than in some of the 'supposedly pregnant' pictures!

Just Me

Anonymous said...

The fact the Gusty was surprised that the pics had made it onto the net has been bugging me all this time. It just hit me: Maybe she was surprised because it WAS a fake, posed pic. Maybe she wanted to have a pic of SP looking pregnant, because she had not gotten one when SP 'supposedly' was preggo. But it was supposed to be just for her own (Gusty's) file. Somehow it got out, not sure how.

Just Me

Anonymous said...

Well, here's Sarah with all 3 of the people in the pics with Andrea Gusty

http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/govpalinreturn_nov7_p02.jpg

duncan

Anonymous said...

The often-stated anti-conspiracy point "it's impossible to think someone like SP could pull off a ruse of such scope" used to stop me each time I read it, because it seems so true. So logical. Of course.

But then I read "it's impossible that SP could think she could pull off such a ruse."

And I shriek "No, no! Not so!!" It's always been entirely believable to me that SP, with her hugely bloated self-confidence, would be certain she could do it.

And also, with her lack of rigor and education, that she would be caught out. At first, just intuitively by many who observe her, and later with that first solid clue-->proof that busts it all open. We're not quite there YET.

And then I think again: my first paragraph IS correct: she's NOT pulling it off! So that first thought sounds accurate, and it IS accurate.

As we know, people all over smelled a rat right from the first moment. Some of us can barely spell, some seem experts, some seem to have an ax to grind, others come to this reluctantly. We are all over the map, literally and figuratively. But from the first, it was only a matter of time.

Whenever I think we should leave them alone and get over it (and I DO often think that) I come back to the hideous, terrifying point that she almost became the president. Such a narrow win for Obama, considering the consequences of a Palin presidency. I wish McCain long life, but the narrowly avoided risk here is akin to nuclear proliferation, in my view. (Worse, because NP would end fast.)

--Amy-One
(by the way, I see there are now two posters named Amy -- on another thread. I was first)

Anonymous said...

Hi, this is Patrick I speaking (from Patrick and Kathleen) ;-)

Thanks a lot to the other Patrick for his highly interesting observations.

And MANY MANY THANKS to duncan - he had sent me an email (patrick12344(at)yahoo.com) and suggested that I should use "Benvista Photozoom Pro" - I have just downloaded the trial version, and this expensive professional program is excactly what we need here! Works perfectly. I hope the trial version won't expire soon...

So with this program we can zoom into every picture in order to see the finest details. Here is the zoom on Sarah's neck area in the "pregnant interview" photo number one (during the interview):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3098875940/

and

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3098923694/

This picture (which is not altered by me in any way apart from the zoom) absolutely confirms the observations of "the other Patrick", that the neck area has been photoshopped (and as a result, the necklace was probably "photoshopped out" - there is absolutely no necklace visible at all).

It just doesn't look right! The right side of her jacket (lapel) appears much too sharp! The "rest" of Sarah is pretty blurry, but even as a layman with only moderate photoshopping experience I think it is more than obvious that some editing was going on the in the "neck area".

I also wanted to point out that it is extremely strange that first, a picture was taken of Sarah being interviewed by KTVA (Andrea Gusty's network), and just three minutes later a jolly group picture was being taken with the crew of KTUU (network of Bill McAllister and Dan Carpenter) - with the same camera!

It's still unclear who took the picture. However, with the nice "photozoom pro" program, it's clearly visible that the reflection in Sarah's glasses in picture number two are actually the reflections of the photographer - the "mystery man", he is right there:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3098937930/

By the way, there are no reflections in the glasses of Bill McAllister whatsoever.

A last point I would like to make is whether a flash was used in these two pictures. At first I thought that this would probably not be the case, as there is a spotlight visible in the first picture, and there are no hard shadows.

However, there is the possibilty that in the second picture, an indirect flash against the ceiling was used. There is definitely a light patch (illumination) on the foreheads of Dan Carpenter and Bill McAllister. That would point to an indirect flash being used, in my opinion. I cannot see anything like that on Sarah's face in pic two. This point is certainly quite interesting and would deserve further investigation, because in the EXIF-data of the pics it cleary says that no flash was fired.

I think the theory that we have got two "pictures that were taken from a picture" should be carefully considered, as this could explain a lot, including the lousy photo quality especially of the first pic (interview) and the timeline with three minutes difference. If you look at other pictures on flickr taken with the same camera, you see lots of sharp, crystalclear pictures.

Patrick

Anonymous said...

There was a transcript purchased by Patrick about the Gusty piece on an empty hallway at the close of the legislative session. (Later she said she had been interviewing Palin.)

Suppose the idea was to do a shot of the empty hallway, capitalizing on an empty hallway and someone came up on the strange sight of Gusty "interviewing" an empty hallway. They saved that shot and then later thought of a use for it.

If they needed a picture from the side with Palin definitely pregnant they took it in the same hallway at another time. Along came Carpenter and McAllister, and they were grabbed for a picture with Sarah in her pregnant suit.

Then a side view pregnancy shot could be put in the space left in the interview with the empty hall.

sandra in oregon

palin pregnancy truth said...

Patrick I of Patrick and Kathleen:

Can you enlarge the boxes in the background?

And what about reflections in the pictures?

Anonymous said...

@Patrick/Dec 10/1:38P Couldn't it be that Carpenter took the Gusty shot and the other cameraman took the shot of Palin, Carpenter, and McAllister? Kind of professional courtesy?

And also, I'm still struck by the caption of the latter. "Myself, Governor Palin, Press Secretary McAllister."

Carpenter is either erik99559 or else erik99559 wanted us to think he/she was Carpenter. And if they aren't the same person, presumably Carpenter would be a lot more vocal about that?

Beth

Anonymous said...

Ok, finally it ocurred to what is definitely wrong with the interview picture - the DEPTH OF FIELD is simply NOT RIGHT.

The picture is sharp from the cameraman in the foreground to the pictures BEHIND Andrea Gusty on the wall.

However, Sarah Palin is standing a few inches BEFORE Andrea Gusty and should have been included in the depth of field without any problems.

But on the picture, Sarah Palin is blurry and not sharp.

See here:

http://flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3102947528/

Patrick