Sunday, December 7, 2008

BREAKING NEWS: KTVA Has LOTS of unseen footage of Palin. Really. They do.

One statement that I - and others - have stated repeatedly is that no concrete proof that Sarah Palin is Trig Palin's biological mother has ever been released or provided. Frankly, we've been villified over this. There's lots of evidence, it's claimed. Lots. Tons. Evidence that we are just ignoring.

Over the next few days I intend to look at some of what has been released.

Today, I am going to focus on the most famous picture of all, this photo which was taken on the last day of the Alaska State Legislative Session (Sunday, April 13th) , in Juneau, with Andrea Gusty, a reporter for KTVA Channel 11 - CBS affiliate in Anchorage). I am also going to discuss a statement made by Cherie Shirey, the Assignment Manager for the same TV station.


Here is the photo - Click for larger version:



This photo has been controversial from its first appearance. I cannot determine for certain where or when it first appeared. The closest I can get is a Flickr account on 8/31. However, consensus is that it appeared nowhere prior to her announcement as the VP nominee on August 30, 2008. (If anyone can refute that please please do so.)

It's also a bit mysterious how it was released, as Andrea Gusty has been quoted by
factcheck.org as saying:

We spoke with Gusty, who sent us this copy of the photo, and she told us she was surprised the photo had made it onto the Internet. “I was under the impression that nobody had it except for me.
Well, someone must have had it because it WAS released, and it sounds as if Gusty is stating clearly it was NOT RELEASED by her. I have tried very hard to pin down its first source. The Daily Kos diary that first shows it attributes it to Free Republic which in turn links to a Flickr page.

There is a second photo on this same Flickr account, shown here.




So who is erik99559? His Flickr accounts shows two photos both uploaded, helpfully, on 8/31/2008. I don't know that it really matters, (though I would think Andrea Gusty might be a bit curious to know who Erik is since somehow he managed to get access to what she has said was a private photo.) I don't really have a problem with the fact that this photo did not come to light until after the pregnancy rumors hit the internet. Lots of photos of Gov. Palin (for example, the Philadelphia Zoo photo that was discussed yesterday) don't seem to have been released until after the nomination. With the great surge in interest in Gov. Palin it is only logical and to be expected that new photos would crop up.

However, there are only four photos in existence which show Gov. Palin between 3/5 and 4/18 in which her midsection is not obscured by a scarf, and three of these four were not released until after her nomination. Those photos are these two, the still shot of Palin with Elan Frank taken on or about 4/8, and the photo released on this blog, taken on 3/25 and posted to a Flickr account shortly after that. All other photos in existence of her from this time frame show her from the side, or back, obscured by - usually - floppy scarves and black jackets or other coats. The only one of the photos that shows her straight on that was available prior to the announcement of her nomination is the one I released on this blog. The three released after her nomination show her clearly pregnant, the one released before is ambiguous at the very best.


Andrea Gusty has stated clearly and explicitly that this photo was taken that day, that it is not photoshopped or altered in any way, and that is how Gov. Palin looked.


We also have a statement, made to
Lee Stratham at the Huffington Post on 9/1/2008 by Cherie Shirey, the Assignment Manager at KTVA. She states:

These internet rumors are very bizarre. We worked with Governer Palin many times in 2008. Our reporters worked her on location and in the studio and I worked with her myself. She was definitely pregnant. You could see it in her belly and her face. The whole idea that Sarah Palin wasn't pregnant with Trig is completely, absolutely absurd.

Now, this is really really good news. The station worked with Palin many times. She looked pregnant. This is a TV station. That means... video tape, right?

Hmmm. Not so fast. In fact, as far as I can tell not a single interview done by KTVA of Palin after January 2008 is available, including, incredibly the one associated with the most famous picture above.

So... given what we have been told by Ms. Gusty and Ms. Shirey, I have a few questions for them and their station.


It is beyond dispute that every single media outlet that reported on Palin's pregnancy announcement in Alaska said the same thing: that it was an utter surprise, a complete shock. This includes the
Anchorage Daily News, ("shocked and awed just about everybody... even her staff was unaware she was pregnant") Newsminer and Juneau Empire ("a day-ending bombshell"). Channel 13 (Alaskasuperstion) called it "the biggest shocker of the year." Channel 11 KTVA itself said the announcement "caught a lot of people off guard."

It is also beyond dispute that from the time of the announcement (late in the afternoon on March 5th) until Trig Palin was born early in the morning on April 18th, was a period of 44 days, slightly more than six weeks.

So... returning to Cherie Shirey's statement, "We worked with Gov. Palin many times in 2008... in the studio..."

Examining Sarah Palin's travel schedule at length, from the time of her announcement until Trig's birth reveals the following:


Circa March 4: Los Angeles to Anchorage
Circa March 7: Anchorage to Fairbanks
Circa March 9: Fairbanks to Anchorage
Circa March 11: Anchorage to Juneau
Circa March 14: Juneau to Anchorage
Circa March 27: Anchorage to Juneau
Circa April 15: from Juneau to Dallas
April 17: from Dallas to Anchorage

During this time, not counting days that she was traveling, Sarah Palin was physically in Anchorage / Wasilla approximately 17 days... out of the 44.

The first question I'd like to ask Cherie Shirey is how many times in these 17 days was Gov. Palin in your studio in Anchorage? What were the stories you were covering? Now certainly, a crew could have followed (and on at least one occasion did follow) Palin to various events: the famous Andrea Gusty shoot on April 13 was in Juneau, so the crew had to fly there. But you have stated specifically that you interviewed her many times in 2008 when she looked pregnant.

So... when? Where's the footage? What were the issues discussed? And, most pointedly, were you specifically claiming to Lee Stratham that there were those of you at KTVA who noticed or believed she was expecting prior to the official announcement on 3/5/2008? If so, why did you not state it immediately after the announcement when everyone else in Alaska was talking about shock and bombshells.

As I said, the search of the KTVA website tells a different tale. When you search on the (logical) search term "Sarah Palin," there is not a single archived story concerning Gov. Palin from early January 2008 (1/08 to be exact) until 7/18 that I can find. Not one. Including the footage - which I would think would be very interesting to a great many people - that was being filmed the day that Andrea Gusty has claimed she looked very noticeably and obviously pregnant.
The footage which would verify either that Palin really did look like that OR that Andrea Gusty is lying through her teeth. Here's the screenshot of the search I did just in case some new footage magically appears.




The reason that this statement needs to be vetted so SO critically is that Cherie Shirey's statement is one of the very few pieces of evidence that the people who have claimed that Palin was certainly pregnant have depended on. It was quoted again just this week by Michelle Malkin as she eviscerates those of us who have continued to question this story. Michelle states: "Shirey was ignored."

Hell yes, she was ignored. And for good reason! She is just about the only person in Alaska who has ever clearly stated that Sarah Palin looked pregnant other than Palin herself, yet she has never provided any proof of what she said even though logically she should be able to do so EASILY: she works at a TV station and the context in which she saw Palin was to FILM her!

She's also the only person who has gone on record at least implying Palin looked pregnant PRIOR to the March 5th announcement, because, given the time limitations, that's the only way Shirey's statement that the station had worked with Palin "many times" could possibly be true. (Even state staffers who had been willing to support Gov. Palin did so with whacky statements like
“All of a sudden she had this penchant for really beautiful scarves.” This description of Palin's accessorizing is not exactly what I would call a resounding confirmation of her pregnancy. But maybe I'm just too picky.)

Neither Shirey nor her station has been willing to provide footage or stills from any of those "many" interviews done in 2008 during which she states Palin was clearly pregnant. Like so many things that could provide some real solid definitive proof that Palin was pregnant last spring, they are said to exist, they should be easy to get, but somehow just never quite seem to make it into the light of day.


Why not?


Of course, to ask that question makes me a "tin foil hat truther," and a lot of other things that I am not even going to repeat here.


But hey, I've got a good idea. Audrey is a nothing but a wing-nut loony, but Michelle Malkin is one of the good guys. She's on the "right side" of all this. Maybe if Michelle Malkin would ask KTVA nicely they would release the Gusty footage from April 13th and the "many" other interviews in which Palin appears pregnant. And then, finally, once and for all, all these pesky rumors could just go away.


Why don't you try, Michelle, and then let us all know how that works out for you? I for one will be watching your blog.

228 comments:

1 – 200 of 228   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Excellent. I think it is appropriate to place the challenge right where it belongs. You have already proven that Sarah did not appear pregnant at all a mere 3 weeks before she allegedly gave birth. Now, let's see what they have, aside from a lot of bluffing.

Anonymous said...

Sarah looks scared, uneay and nervous in these two pictures.

Mary G. said...

Wow!! this made my day. I am finding it utterly unbelievable that folks on the right, like Malkin, are starting to equate a far-fetched and improbable birth/labor story with Obama's birth certificate. It's as if they are saying, not very subtly, if you give up on Palin's story, we'll give up on.... blah, blah.
But there is nothing to examine in Palin's case. I have repeatedly tried to find that bizarre-o news interview chronicled in Gusty's "personal" photo, to no avail. Other stories are available--not in that timeframe, of course.
So, alaskan t.v. viewers, didn't you see this story on the day the legislative session wrapped up? Wasn't Palin in front of a camera every minute, as she was during the campaign? Mary g.

Anonymous said...

love it. too bad you're not in the legislature, since it seems you're the only one willing to keep on pressing for transparency. They must not realize how bad it looks you providing pictures, quotes, best evidence while they only provide vague undocumented statements.

On the second hand maybe they think any attention they can get bad or good is better than none at all.

Has anyone figured out Bristol's email address, yet?

When does she turn 18, btw?

Anonymous said...

Where is that photo taken and what time of day? Did they do a special shoot after hours? Or did they do a shoot at all? I mean who's taking the picture of those 3 and why? That's what I want to know Smells like a SETUP!!!

I notice there's a box behind her in the middle of the hallway.

The light is off in the office behind her, also.

The cameraman's shirt is untucked (assuming during workhours it's tucked in like a professional).

Unknown person taking picture of the three of them.

Craig said...

Why should she, or more correctly, why should the TV station, release any old video or photos of Palin from last Spring? They don't have any questions about the truth of her pregnancy. The vast majority of the general public has no concern about it. There is no news value to it for them. They have no obligation to feed the frenzy of a small group of truthers who, in the end, will simple disgard such evidence as Sarah wearing a fake pregnancy device or that it's a photoshopped picture, etc.

There is no end to truther logic, because there is always a story that can be create to counter it. It's an endless circle that can only be stopped if the person chooses to step off the merry-go-round and say "I'm done".

Anonymous said...

Is there someone in AK who would be willing to request all the photos (public records) of SP or her family that were on the state of AK website, along with the records of any/all directives to remove them?

Alex said...

Totally agree with Anon 1:41. The photo looks suspiciously set-up. I mean, what TV station takes stills of a video-taped interview? Unless the interviewee brings along someone to snap the interview.

Anonymous said...

"Many times in 2008" does not mean just in the key weeks in question. That is your own assumption.

Though it is reasonable to assume that the TV staff interacted in-person with her at least several times during the period in question.

Jack Bog said...

The guy on the left is Erik99559 himself, according to his Flickr page. FWIW, it also says that the photos were taken on March 19, 2005.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30076181@N02/2814979078/in/datetaken/

Anonymous said...

Bristol turned 18 on October 18 (the day of the SNL spoof, when Sarah offered to have Bristol babysit for Tina Fey's daughter). So she is 18 now -- and there is another "18" for one of the blog posters, who was intrigued by all the 18s in the various due dates and birth dates.

Anonymous said...

@Craig

That's not true. There are a number of ways this rumor could have easily, definitively been put to bed long before now. One of the major themes of this blog is the conspicuous absence of that evidence. Please read the archives.

Anonymous said...

in response to anon 1:24, look at

http://gawker.com/5051193/
sarah-palins-personal-emails

they're probably not current, but maybe email is forwarded to the new one.

oh, and Audrey, I think this is an EXCELLENT trail to follow. I was wondering why I never saw video footage of this still picture, but never pursued the thought. You have my utmost respect for researching this in such a methodical and rational manner.

Delta said...

Why would they take a picture of the cameraman taking pictures anyway? Who took the still shot? Another cameraman? An assignment editor? A random office worker who happened to be passing by with a camera? Every time I've ever been interviewed on camera for a set-up shot (I'm assuming that's what it was based on the notes in Andrea's hand), there has been a lot more footage shot than actually used too. A one minute segment might have 10 or 15 minutes of film. Where is the rest of it? And where is the film the cameraman was shooting? We have a single still shot, but no live footage.

Things that make you go "hmmmmmm......"

Anonymous said...

On the right is Bill McAllister, who is now a state press secretary but at the alleged time of the photo was a senior reporter for KTUU-TV.

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=5686540

Anonymous said...

From the photo caption on the Flicker page - Eric is the guy on the left, with Palin and McAllister. Was he just in the area, a friend of Gusty's, hanging around and snapped the photo of the interview, and then had her or someone else snap a pic of him with Palin? Why did she think only she had the photo? Was it her camera that was used? If so, she obviously shared it with him because he posted it on Flicker. And why wouldn't she know this?

It doesn't make sense, if they are defenders of Palin, that they wouldn't post tons of photos for proof.

Somehow, all these people that could come to Palin's aid here, with photos, videos, records, statements -- aren't doing so. It makes this mystery all the crazier.

They could have provided all of this to Andrew Sullivan when he begged for the info.

We aren't the only crazies, obviously!

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

SP's co-workers are being igonored by that Mal-content wingnut! the same folks who saw her EVERYDAY were totally suprised.

Jack Bog said...

Erik could be Erik Hill, a photographer at the Anchorage Daily News?

Jack Bog said...

Never mind. Erik Hill is around 50 years old.

Delta said...

For a HUGELY LARGE pic of Palin taken on March 11, http://todercan.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/with_sarah_palin.jpg

It's practically life-sized, and the scarf is hanging straight down, not poking out over a 7-month pregnant belly.

Anonymous said...

Great work, Audrey! Thanks for all your effort!

Anonymous said...

To add to my previous post about Erik - that is (fairly) obvious the 99559 is his zip code and that is for Bethel, Alaska.

There is plenty of discussion about his photos, since he posted them August 31st- when Palin was announced VP pick.

Can't find anything to ID him further. Bethel is a start!

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

in pic 1, what is SP looking at? the photo looks staged. she's not looking at the TV camera or the reporter next to her and in pic 2 HER FACE IS NOT PREGNANT! It just isnt.

Anonymous said...

A bit off topic, but I finally realized why it is likely that Bristol is going to give birth to her first (or second) child as an unwed mother in lieu of having her child born in wedlock by marrying Levi before the birth, although she is allegedly engaged.

As an unmarried dependent of mom and dad, Bristol is probably on mom's health care insurance and can receive gold-plated obstetrical care. I'm sure once she is married, she is dropped from mom's policy.

Some have noted that the Palin children are eligible for free Native Alaskan health care since they are descendants (through Todd) of Native Alaskans, but I highly doubt that is "gold-plated" care like Mom's insurance.

So Bristol (or more likely mom who is calling the shots) chooses gold-plated health care rather than having her baby born in wedlock. Insurance trumps family values.

Not that I blame her. But, as always, the sickening thing is the hypocrisy of Sarah Palin. She doesn't believe in universal health care and thinks health care is a privilege, not a right. But she can sure game the system so she and her get theirs. Everyone else can eat cake.

leu2500 said...

99559 is the zip code for Bethel, AK. Until recently, Eric Middlebrook was the mayor. This link has a picture of him: http://tinyurl.com/6xuene.

Could he be the man on the right side of the the 2nd picture?

Anonymous said...

The video of Palin in the blue jacket tapping her belly. A couple things. In one of the videos she pushes her belly to the point of a nice indintation. Belly was not hard but jello like. Also in the video if you stop on the belly. It is oblong and not tight looks fake!

What she says is comical about hiding it and the belly being hard. She is goofy about it.

Anonymous said...

Hi there.. I have been lurking quietly and reading comments -- learning more and more every day.. I always thought the story of the birth sounded so outrageous, I am glad you are pursuing this topic.. it takes a lot of courage and you are doing an excellent job. I imagine you have a lot of supporters like me who watch without comment. Thanks for all you are doing to free Alaska and the US from who knows what!!

Anonymous said...

There is an Erik Elam in Bethel who is on the staff of Rep Don Young. Couldn't find any pictures of him.

sandra in oregon

Anonymous said...

Audrey,
How do we know that this was taken on April 13th instead of staged later?

Mary G. said...

I just noticed that Andrea Gusty is wearing sandals of some kind. This is April in Juneau, isn't it?
And, thinking back to that style maven Palin, I don't recall many images of her with her hair down. Not until the republican stylists got a hold of her, anyway. I think I'll go look at those Palin Pregnancy photos Audrey has on Palindeception.com--they were always very convincing, with this Gusty picture standing out like a sore thumb.--Mary g.

Anonymous said...

For whatever it's worth: I was a TV news reporter many moons ago and sometimes people just DO take pictures of you working. Then they mail them to you. I'm not saying that's what happened here, or not. But someone in that hallway who found this exciting could have just taken a photo of it. Where it went after that is anyone's guess.

Keep up the great work, Audrey. I really enjoy this site.

Anonymous said...

Craig states that the vast majority of Americans don't care about this.

Perhaps it would be helpful encouragement to know just how many people do care/have Googled etc. and followed this.

It is interesting that the Right employs the begging comparison to the Obama birth controversy. But, I think it is telling that many, many credible people, even Obama critics, have found the Trig scenario to be at very least, very odd... but they are not politically motivated to question.

Many people have not investigated this story, b/c it is embroiled in political correctness not to, and hence, those who have were publicly shamed (including us pajama bloggers).

I believe this matter is extremely relevant as those who claim that simply asking for a birth certicate, or hospital photo is a gross privacy violation... but support invading the private choices of women across the land. The day that Trig became a political tactic, is the day we have the right to question this extremely odd circumstantial nagging scenario.

Michelle Malkin- no one asked for an umbilical cord, and it wouldn't do any good -your right, b/c the only thing that would require is DNA testing... and we aren't asking for any graphic delivery photos. Maybe for one, just that the web photos scrubbed be returned to the web, or a birth certificate, or a little cooperation from people who claim they have seen proof, but offer only ridicule and hearsay.

Craig said...

The only thing that is "conspicuously absent" is real evidence that Trig is not Sarah's child.

Truther logic can always discount whatever is provided. If a Birth Certificate is given; it's a fake. Any medical records? Falsified. If the doctor is interviewed as stating that she was at the delivery? Pressured to comply. Bristol gives birth 8 months after her "prior" delivery? Its a premie.

It will never end for those who don't want it to.

Anonymous said...

I think we have to use Todercan's picture as the smoking gun because his show clearly even with coat on Palin was not 'showing' pregnant. He states his picture is from April 11, 2008.

The jacket and scarf both fall straight down not over a 'belly'. So going from this to the one in the KTVA photo is implausible.

For those that want to confuse the topic by talking about Obama. Terrible try. It's okay, we can deal with questions about Obama, too, these things are not mutually exclusive.

To use legal jargon: when there is a overwhelming evidence the judge will/can make a call ''based on the preponderance of the evidence''
and ''what any reasonable person could conclude''

sjk said...

Lets just go with Malkin's assumption that WE ARE ALL NUTS! All of US ARE NUTS!

So, that must make the OFFICIAL birth story the truth.

Someone please call the Family Services Dept or what ever it is in AK (in FL it is DCF) and investigate ALL of the alleged facts of the travel; water leak, Dr. approval, etc and make sure
she is FIT to be a MOTHER. if the story IS true she put a lot of folks at risk; the mother, the unborn baby, all of the passengers and crew on 2 LONG flights.

I'm sure Scarah is familar with "judgement".

If she used said "judgement" to have a "fish catcher in AK", I question her ability to do anything with a modicum of rationality.

After this , lets look at her house!

Anonymous said...

It should be stated that women in power who want MORE power avoid looking vulnerable. Sad as it is, women who appear gigantic with pregnancy are taken less seriously. This woman was on a MISSION from God to be VP (something about doors opening...), and nothing was going to stop her. She hid and bound the baby with undergarments. She jogged aggressively and just didn't want to appear anything less than presidential. THAT may be why there is no visual confirmation of the pregnancy. Why will she not supply it now? Maybe she likes staying in the news with the controversy. I think she lets it perpetuate for marketing herself so she can call the left crazy. I think you're part of her strategy to mock her adversaries.

Anonymous said...

Eric Middlebrook is 49 and a former mayor of Bethel AK. He is now on the city council. He's a registered Dem. Keep looking!

Mary G. said...

The silence from the photo-shop & EXIF data checkers is deafening. Come on guys, put your talents to work! Here are two photos, the BEST and MOST convicing depictions of Palin not only pregnant, but undraped! Proudly displaying her belly in something other than the voluminous and ill-fitting clothes seen in, say, the March 26 photo. Let's put all our talents to work on this. And maybe ask Gusty and her manager for those statements again. Other eye-witness accounts of Palin have been shown to be complete fabrications, like the one given in Sept. to the Washington post by--a baby born the same day as Trig! Kinda young to be talking to reporters.
So, giving Gusty the benefit of the doubt, let's ask her. Unless she was on location somewhere else in the state...

Anonymous said...

Re the picture linked by Anon at 2:42 PM. I find it bizarre that Sarah is wearing a blue windbreaker inside. Everything about this woman is bizarre.

Gryphen said...

SJK said
Lets just go with Malkin's assumption that WE ARE ALL NUTS! All of US ARE NUTS!

So, that must make the OFFICIAL birth story the truth.

Someone please call the Family Services Dept or what ever it is in AK (in FL it is DCF) and investigate ALL of the alleged facts of the travel; water leak, Dr. approval, etc and make sure
she is FIT to be a MOTHER. if the story IS true she put a lot of folks at risk; the mother, the unborn baby, all of the passengers and crew on 2 LONG flights.

Funny you should mention that.

I often work with OCS (Office of Children's Services) up here in Alaska, and made some inquiries.

I was told that since the flight took place BEFORE Trig's birth there was nothing they could do. They also said that they were not even sure they would have the authority to investigate the Governor.

Another little tidbit is that they had also discussed the rumor but most of them figured Trig was probably hers.

However it is only 11 more days until Bristol is supposed t ogive birth and I know I am paying close attention, and so are many others up here. So let's see what happens.

Windy City Woman said...

Regarding that todercan photo, why would Sarah wear a windbreaker in what otherwise looks like a formal portrait in front of a desk? To hind a non-tummy?

OK, so one TV station claims to have lots of footage of Palin. What about the other stations? A state governor, especially one seeking lots of attention, should be on the news on every TV station in the state quite regularly. What about the other TV stations in Alaska1? Don't they have any footage during the months prior to Trig's alleged birth date?

And what about the newspapers? Sarah doesn't read them, but I bet she appears in them. Don't they have more photos? What about the outtakes (unused photos)? Doesn't any reader of this blog work for either TV or print media in Alaska and have access to these? Maybe some pictures went unused because they weren't "nice" (blinking or something) or because they showed her tummy (big or small) and could be scrutinized?

Regarding why the TV news staff posed for a picture with Palin, maybe they just wanted pix of themselves with a celebrity. Years ago I went to a friend's house, and on the wall was a picture of his dad shaking hands with JFK--his claim to fame, I guess. Another friend had to meet Henry Kissinger via work, and had her picture taken with him. Another had her picture taken with a local sports celebrity. People do that.

Sunshine1970 said...

Mary G: I believe the exif data on the image says it's from March 194th 2005. the exif data also gives the type of camera (If I'm reading it correctly, it's a Fujifilm FinePix S9000), and that camera was not out for sale until June/July 2005 so the camera was obviously not set correctly. The data can be interesting, but not always correct.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @5:15 p.m. wrote: "Maybe she [Palin] likes staying in the news with the controversy. I think she lets it perpetuate for marketing herself so she can call the left crazy. I think you're part of her strategy to mock her adversaries."

If so, Anonymous @5:15 p.m., it's another losing strategy for Palin; she desperately needs some new strategists. McCain-Palin lost the national election and a new poll released this week re: GOP candidates for 2012 puts Huckabee at the top of the list. Palin's biggest political problem is lots of Republicans do not like her.

If Palin could offer any official evidence up proving her April wonderbirth, why would she be so slow to do so? Because she can't.

And Malkin's equation of Obama's birth certificate to Palin's amazing April birth saga is a complete logical fallacy: Post Ergo, Ergo Propter Hoc.

Is there no one on the Right who can intellectually defend Palin, and offer recognizable proof of her April "wonderbirth"? Why do none of the national party leaders defend her? Why did McCain's staff call Palin a "whack job"?

luna1580 said...

everyone please do a side-by-side comparison of the "face-forward w/belly" pic and the "nail" pic.

copy them from flicker and paste them into your favorite program or something, or maybe audrey will repost them right next to each other here.

she is facing the camera at almost an identical angle, so this is interesting.

it looks like her breasts (not to be leering like some old republican man, but....) seem to have "moved up" on her frame in the w/belly pic. how would this happen on a naturally pregnant body? i can't think of a way. however, if she was using something like this

empathy belly

it could mysteriously "move" her breasts too.

luna

sjk said...

luna, yes. the boobs or the belly moved in the pics. Look at the distance betwen the top of the bump and the boob-line. geez..

I wish I had more time for this but my focus is the HOUSE. That will get her prison, not just an appearance on Oprah.

And Bristol's newest baby of course will help a LOT with confirming all of Audrey's hard work and research.

GO AUDREY GO!

Anonymous said...

Is the light blue windbreaker the same outfit worn when she met the students to sign a bill abut History of Alaska becoming part of the curriculum? Can we see those photos together?

Anonymous said...

I wonder if this might have been in Palin's luggage en route to her "delivery."

Anonymous said...

If they had any such footage of Pregnant-Palin they would have broadcasted it after her nomination, for ratings if not for anything else.

You might want to check their later broadcasts.

Anonymous said...

I have just searched and searched for anything else about Erik - the Elam staffer for Rep. Young sounds promising, but he doesn't even have a Facebook page (with that name).

There is an Erik Jakobsen class of 2004 from Bethel AK HS on Classmates.com.

I found Andrea' Facebook - and no friend named Erik. But she does have a friend - the new Dem. Senator Mark Begich. Interesting.

Can't they just give up some photos and be done with it? Why can't Erik come forward?! His own picture is on the, for cripes sake!

Anonymous said...

I think it is pretty ironic that a "pregnant" Palin in the photo at the April Legislative session, later line item vetoed the work they did that session to fund support of pregnant teenagers - even though her own daughter was currently or/was about to be one. She never ceases to amaze most of the thinking public.

http://tinyurl.com/6ndx4g

Anonymous said...

These 2 photos from KTVA have always looked weird to me, because Palin seems unusually short in them - sort of "squished down" and "widened out" - definitely not her usual self. The facial proportions also look "off" - her face looks very block-like and the head seems disproportionately large for her body, esp. in the first photo (side view).

Also, for what it's worth, the zoo picture affects me the same way. The woman on the right doesn't really look like SP to me - too chunky in arms, hips, legs, face.
Hair and smile not quite right either.

But I know that the lens and photographic angle can make a huge difference, so I think it's tough to make a definitive call based on this kind of evidence.
MH

Anonymous said...

What is the height of Andrea Gusty? Maybe we can get a sense of proportion from that. The previous poster was right about SP looking 'squished'.

luna1580 said...

she looks "squished" most likely because the proportions of her torso are "new."

her bust-line is closer to her chin than it used to be -see my comment about 10 posts before this. she is also wearing fairly flat, loafer-esque shoes here, looks like 2" heel, max.

Anonymous said...

@Craig

This blog is a speculative exercise; if there was "real" (i.e. definitive) evidence that Sarah was not the mother, there would be no need for this blog. Nothing "conspicuous" about that, especially considering the difficulty of proving a negative no one is interested in investigating.

All of those pieces of evidence you just mentioned have not been provided. They could easily be, but they have not. Had they been, Audrey, as she has stated, and Sullivan, as he has stated, would have been satisfied, and there would be no controversy. Pretending this is some sort of "truther" conspiracy is convenient for you, because it enables you to dismiss it out of hand, but there isn't a valid parallel. There has not been any evidence provided to be "explained away," and the ringleaders of this investigation have not indicated a readiness to do so, far from it.

GraceR said...

I was checking on the hair. SP definitely has worn her hair down prior to this year, fairly often if you look at pictures.

Speaking of hair, in doing my research on this issue, I found this interesting quote by her hairdresser, Jessica Steele:
Mrs. Steele’s fourth pregnancy overlapped with Mrs. Palin’s fifth. “She kept it quiet,” Mrs. Steele said. “But I remember her hair was acting different. And I thought, ‘Something is going on!’ ”

Perry said...

I'm still bothered by this photo of Bristol on your website. How was the due date of 5-15-08 established? Because if that is off by even 2-3 weeks, that could still be a baby bump.

ABS said...

To the anonymous poster about why Sarah would be wearing a jacket: I think that a lot of constituent/colleague photo opportunities are when the governer is either coming from or going to another meeting. I've noticed with celebrities and other busy people, their staff work things like this into the few minutes between other activities. It's both a way to squeeze it into a busy schedule, and a way to limit the contact and the governor then "must" leave.

Plus the fact that it's Alaska...I don't think it's ever unreasonable to be wearing a jacket there :-)

Silver Salmon said...

Couple of small Palin photos from KTUU. They're from March 18.

Right click on the images to open them and make them slightly larger.

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=8037533

Anonymous said...

The guy on the left is Dan Carpenter. He is a photographer for KTUU Ch 2. NBC's Anchorage station. I think this was mentioned in an earlier post but the guy on the right is Bill McCallister...also USED to work for KTUU and is now SP's Press Secretary.

mm in anc

Allison Connell Pensky said...

An interesting idea I'd never thought of...and kind of creepy. If you couldn't gain incite into her character from her exorbitantly priced wardrobe during our financial crisis, this proposition should certainly bring some questioning onto her. I think one thing we can all be sure of is that the country is better off by far that she didn't get her claws into a higher office than she already holds. Phew!

Anonymous said...

Anybody who questions how such a public figure could pull off such a charade need only look at the current situation. With even more people aware of Bristol's current pregnancy, there is hasn't been one sighting, let alone new picture of her, in weeks.

Anonymous said...

Finally, I do have to admit that in every picture SP is wearing a jacket, scarf, or something to obscure her midsection.

Especially, interesting is the pics where others clearly are short sleeved she is covering up...even in supposed baby bump bristol pic inside their home in front of the window.

Had it occurred once or twice I wouldn't even give it a second thought.

To what extent conscious or not?
When taken together with all of the possible ''Gates''.
The forehandedness to conceal is astounding.

Given that she is a public servant, a celebrity, (but not a hollywood celebrity) upon who 'the people' need to see, hear, interact with on a daily basis, one might reasonably conclude she wouldn't create this kind of 'intrigue' since it is distracting from her duties.
Where is the Paparrazzi? It would certainly be legal to follow her around at all times and take pictures of her and her family.in

Ace Armstrong said...

When the bloviators of pseudo-concern begin throwing up argumentum ad hominem they are defending the undefensible.
As a national politician Gov. Palin has to accept scrutiny of her life.
This issue is no different than the recent petition to SCOTUS over the issue of President-elect Obama's birth certificate.
Coining a term such as 'truther' only exposes an underbelly of ignorance and an uncanny ability to deny the truth.

palin pregnancy truth said...

To those of you with photoshop skills (I lack them), can we enlarge the Gusty pic? There appears to be boxes in the background

Weird to have cardboard boxes in the hallway and in the frame of a news interview.

Did Palin just take the empathy suit out of the box? Can we enlarge the writing on the box to determine where it's from?

Also, have we IDed the other man in the second picture? Could he be the camera man from the Gusty pic?

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

"even her obstetrician presented her with a potluck meal"...who dat?

Anonymous said...

Angelina Estrada-Burney's husband's name is Erik. She works across the hall from the gov's office, according to news reports. Burney is the woman who made the 'all of sudden she was wearing scarves' comment about SP's sudden pg announcement. She has connections to the Bethel area through her govt work and her community work. They are both repubs and active in the AK Rep Party. Angelina was an alternate delegate to the RNC in MN. Erik is a board member of the Anchorage Snowmobile Club and an avid hunter.

Anonymous said...

Wow, this blog is amazing!

Where do I get my very own tinfoil hat at??

I wanna join the rest of you loonies.

Jack Bog said...

Why does Dan Carpenter post on Flickr as "erik99559"?

Anonymous said...

mm in anc: how do you know this is Dan Carpenter? I realize it is plausible that it's him as it was a KVUU news crew, but why would a photog be wearing a suit and tie, and not have any gear? All the professional photogs I know dress like guys going to film the war in Iraq...e.g. flak jackets or vests with tons of pockets and all slung about with camera equipment. They are still using actual film cameras, not digital, for the final shots. Digital is used for test shots. Was this a purely social or professional call on SP, after hours?

--Two Blue Jays

Anonymous said...

For me, it is the Michelle Malkins that need to be exposed for what they really are: shills for liars.

Any rational person looking at the direct and circumstantial evidence would have to conclude that SP is not Trig mother, more likely than not. If SP had not been the high-profile GOP VP nominee, there would be no defenders of that position. But Michelle Malkin and others want to believe SP and their own brand is superior, so they accept evidence and argument they would never accept if the party affiliations were reverse. That is hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Further, MM wants to browbeat us into ignoring our own judgment and just accept her 'belief' as correct without questioning. To MM and other like her, any testimony or evidence that might support her position is absolutely certain and everything else must be ignored that contradicts that evidence, even good sense.

This episode it typical of a spin-machine gone mad. Only the spin matters to them, not the truth. Well, MM, we're coming for you and the rest of your cohort. I don't give a damn about SP. She's such a joke already there's not long-term danger of the country putting her in charge of anything. But you and your kind will still be around and Audrey, her assistants, and people like me are going to be certain that people like you will never be able to get away with obscuring the truth ever again.

Hey MM -- you seem to have a pipeline to SP. Why don't you make us all look like fools by getting her to release her medical records for independent review and verification? You shouldn't be able to resist that offer.

You won't, MM, because you're the fool, not us. We haven't been fooled because anyone seeking the truth, who only wants the truth, is never a fool.

Dangerous

Anonymous said...

mm in anc

That is interesting, if you say the guy on the left is a Dan Carpenter from KTUU. Do you know him? Do you have any other photos of him to verify? Their Website doesn't seem to have a photo of him.

The Flicker post says "Myself" for the guy on the left, and it is posted by erik99559. Why would Dan use that screenname? Why would Andrea seem to think only she was in possession of that photo? Weirdness, for sure.

OK -- so Dan come forward and explain.

twodot said...

See Andrew Sullivan today (08 Dec 2008 10:20 am), pretty good argument (by Patrick Appel)for Sarah Sullivan being Trig's mother. I'm now convinced.

Anonymous said...

By the way, how was SP even allowed, as a visibly pregnant woman (according to the "pregnant" photos) to fly from Juneau to Dallas on April 15? She could have easily gone "into labor" on the flight there. Was it a commercial flight? Has anyone looked into this?

I imagine that the inter-Alaska flights were private.

Craig said...

Sorry, but this blog is no mere thought exercise. From what I've been reading, this is straight-up true believers territory. Granted, there are some who come here for the entertainment value of speculation theatre. But it is obvious that many are convinced that a full-blown conspiracy is in place, and no amount of counter-evidence will change that preferred narrative.

The latest reality denial will be Bristol's newborn this month. Just watch. Once the miscarrige and still-born options are made moot, NO ONE will accept the immpossibility of a full-term baby born 8 months after a "prior" delivery.

The stories will be:

a) its a premie

b) the baby was bought from another woman

c) the baby was taken from another woman (and that woman was murdered to cover it up)

d) a relative agreed to conceive a child to give to Bristol to play off as her newborn, which would also give her some family resemblences.

I'm sure there are even more creative ones brewing.

This is Truther 101: ignore the obvious explanations and seek out any circumstancial detail that can keep hope alive!

And God help us if the delivery is a few weeks late and it gives people an opening to suggest that she really could have conceived another child IMMEDIATELY after Trig and delivered a full-term child.

By the way, there is a good story up on the Daily Dish by a co-blogger with Sullivan. Check it out.

Anonymous said...

What strikes me about this TV/visibly pregnant picture is that there is no way airline personnel could have NOT known this was a pregnant woman. So, maybe their comment was that they didn't know she was in labor? Maybe everyone is parsing words here?

On another note, A. Sullivan posted a comment by someone last week that eloquently stated how SP might just have been in denial for so long. Her career was taking off, she had a chance to get away from this wacked family, she's almost rid of the two oldest trouble-maker kids and then at the age of 44, she finds herself pregnant with a very complicated baby no less. So, knowing what we do about her: that her emotional growth is stunted somewhere around 13 years old, she just kept wearing tight clothes, running, eating less, then strapping it in as tight as she could, not telling anyone until it just had to burst out in words and clothing. Folo that with a visible denial (ignoring him/no visible warmth) that this is really her baby and she needs to do "right" by him, ie, bond, early intervention etc. See AS's column for that writer's better version of this.

BUT then the problem is that this whole thing has so many weird elements. So even if we believe that she is his mother and that the leaking/flight story is a lie, there are ALL THE OTHER weird things that keep pulling us back into it. I don't need to enumerate them here, but ALL those other elements to this story that simply don't go away.

Final note: the person here who wrote about the sister having 9 kids and the word on the street...does this person know anymore about what was seen/thought/being said up there? (9 kids? Who the hell has 9 kids in this day and age?) L.A.

Anonymous said...

I recently found out about this site (great work, btw!), so I haven't read through everything. Is there any recent news on Palin "breastfeeding" her baby? There's still some talk of it, but to this day no one seems to have witnessed her having to excuse herself either to feed or to pump. Plenty of witnesses to her bottle-feeding the baby, though. That alone seems odd to me, but then again I haven't explored this angle too much.

Anonymous said...

The reason SP looks "squished" is because the clothes are much too big for her. Also she's wearing flat heels, so she looks shorter.

The box in the hall makes sense because the picture was taken on Sunday. Putting throw-aways in the hall way is a pretty standard procedure. The custodians probably didn't come on shift until later that night.

sandra in oregon

Anonymous said...

To Craig, 9:15 a.m.

If we're all so nutty and this is all so crazy, why do YOU keep coming here day after day to dispute the results?

Emily said...

Craig said:

The only thing that is "conspicuously absent" is real evidence that Trig is not Sarah's child.

Truther logic can always discount whatever is provided. If a Birth Certificate is given; it's a fake. Any medical records? Falsified. If the doctor is interviewed as stating that she was at the delivery? Pressured to comply. Bristol gives birth 8 months after her "prior" delivery? Its a premie.

It will never end for those who don't want it to.

----------------------------------

1. Obama's birth certificate - Produced, and, as you said, denied by truthers.
2. Palin's medical records - Never released. Just a one-page doctor's note that is extremely vague.
3. Doctor interview stating she was at the delivery - Never happened. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson has never stated she was present, nor has any other doctor.
4. Bristol gives birth - Hasn't happened, but we are all waiting anxiously for the day.


Nice try.

Sunshine1970 said...

This is interesting. From 'The Daily Dish:'

"Sarah [Palin] was in another room, and they said that she was sleeping when we arrived. And so, we got a little bit of footage of Sally [Heath] holding Trig, and Chuck [Heath] standing next to her. And Bristol [Palin] was in there, and I said to Bristol, "We should get some footage of you and your brother and your grandparents." And she’s like, "No I really don’t like to be photographed." And I said, "Are you sure?" And she’s like, "Yeah, yeah, no." And she didn’t have any make-up on or anything, but she was dressed in typical teenage attire, a tight shirt, low-cut jeans, you know, and we had heard the rumors before the delivery of this baby also, that Bristol was pregnant, and so, when my photographer and I got to the hospital and we saw her, I thought, well, clearly there’s no way that that girl just delivered a baby seven hours ago. "

How come this hasn't come to light until now?!

Kathy said...

Anonymous @ 9:30 AM,

Your mention of breastfeeding reminded me of another SP quote that also sounded a little hinky:

People Exclusive

John McCain & Sarah Palin on Shattering the Glass Ceiling

By Sandra Sobieraj Westfall

Originally posted Friday August 29, 2008 08:30 PM EDT

http://tinyurl.com/5tq2af

"What does Governor Palin need to know about working with your dad?
MEGHAN: He likes to get up early in the morning and go. Seems like she likes to do that too. I guess with a baby...
JOHN MCCAIN: ... she has to be. (Laughter)
SARAH PALIN: Morning person. Yup. We don't sleep much. Too much to do. What I've had to do, though, is in the middle of the night, put down the BlackBerries and pick up the breast pump. Do a couple of things different and still get it all done."

Now, granted that I've only had one pregnancy and it was a while back, but I do remember that I NEVER got up in the middle of the night to do the breast pump. Why would someone do that? I only got up at night to feed my daughter directly from the breast. At this point in Trig's age (past the first month), SP should not have needed to pump at night. Audrey, you're a breastfeeding specialist; can you comment on this? As I remember, once I got past the first month, my breasts were pretty "comfortable" and I didn't get engorged or "need" to pump for a missed feeding.

I know this is rather a throw-away line, but it appeared to me just another SP "lie when you don't have to" moment.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if this is anything to consider: In all the 'pregnancy' pics, SP is wearing a coat, even indoors. I remember when *I* was pregnant, I was VERY hot, especially towards the end of my term. This fact is simply puzzling to me, because SP is wearing heavy coats even when people around her are in short sleeves or 'light' longsleeves, w/o coats.

Anonymous said...

Time to slap down all those SP defenders, including Andrew Sullivan's co-blogger on Daily Dish (while Andrew is away?).

Your arguments that SP MUST be the mother are completely without support and would never be accepted in court. It is all based on the circular reasoning of fools and true believers, and anyone convinced by SP's word alone is a fool not worth listening to on any matter. You are like little children who really, really, really want to believe in Santa Claus.

The truth is staring you in the face, but still you continue to openly post arguments that do nothing to defend your conclusion for anyone with a functioning brain.

Exhibit A
'Someone said she looked pregnant'

Guess what? I just saw some Friends reruns and Jennifer Aniston looked pregnant for weeks, and simulated birth and everything. But she was never pregnant. (Lisa Kudrow actually WAS pregnant during earlier episodes, and it was written into the pot.)

None of you can prove unequivocally that SP was the mother. NONE OF YOU. It should be the easiest thing. But you can't. Birth of a child is not a private illness thing. Hiding behind HIPAA is no excuse, since SP PUBLICLY announced both the pregnancy and birth, and Trig's DS.

You can't prove SP is Trig's mother because IT ISN'T TRUE. It is were true, it would be simple for all of you to prove. But your circumstantial evidence and purported eyewitness testimony is far, far weaker than our evidence she isn't Trig's mother.

Exhibit B
'The April 18 photo where SP looks pregnant.'

Right. LOOKS pregnant. See Jennifer Aniston reference above.

How about the dates and times she went to her doctor for pre-natal care visit? How about the name of the lab which did the amnio analysis and date and location where the amnio was performed?

Exhibit C
'Sarah Palin claims she's Trig's mother. You guys have to prove otherwise.'

Oh no we don't. SP may claim to be Trig's mother, but she also has made many other claims that aren't true and have proven to be untrue.

SP has already admitted to intentional deception and keeping secrets. She has admitted she intentional disguised her 'pregnant' condition. She admitted she didn't tell friends and family close to her that she was pregnant. She admitted that she knew that Trig had DS but didn't even tell Trig's 'brother' and 'sisters'.

So SP is an admitted liar/deceiver.

This is a non-motive based conclusion, because her self-stated or speculated motives aren't relevant. If she might lie/deceive/cover-up for one motive, she might lie/deceive/cover-up about her motives, too.

Exhibit D
'I went into labor in Texas with my fifth child and delivered that child in Alaska the next day after flying 12 hours and driving an hour and a half to a remote hospital without a NICU bypassing multiple opportunities to have myself checked by competent medical staff to have my triple-high-risk pregnancy induced to labor by my close friend non-OB/GYN family practitioner with expertise in child sexual abuse.'

So SP is admittedly reckless when it comes to matters of life and death. She could have been just as reckless in trying to deceive everyone in the country about Trig's true parentage.

The above are your side's arguments and they actually all argue for our side. So unless you come up with something better, we're going to continue to pursue the truth of the matter and the proof that SP is a liar and you are all gullible, childish fools.

Dangerous

Sarah said...

Blogger twodot said...

See Andrew Sullivan today (08 Dec 2008 10:20 am), pretty good argument (by Patrick Appel)for Sarah Sullivan being Trig's mother. I'm now convinced.


You're kidding, twodot, right? The argument from Appel is that he is no longer INTERESTED in the truth and thinks the subject should be dropped... :-D Wouldn't that be conveeeeenient?

Here's the "verbage" from Appel on The Daily Dish:
I understand this point, but I'd still rather let the issue go. Palin's unfitness for office has been demonstrated again and again. The tale of Palin's pregnancy tells us nothing we didn't know already.

Let it go? Not gonna happen. :-|

the TV DJ said...

Just a note on any "unseen footage". I have worked in several television stations throughout my career (cameraman, production work, etc...). Usually a reporter or camerman will shoot quite a bit of footage for any story they plan on running. The footage is then edited into the package that will be shown. Any remaining footage is (98% of the time) not kept. The tapes are usually recorded over fairly soon (digital tapes can get expensive so most reporters are only given a handful that they use over and over until they wear out). Any story that airs (or is produced but doesn't air) is usually archived by the news department for future reference. I would doubt that any non-aired footage exists after more than a week or two unless a reporter is saving it for an ongoing story.

Craig said...

Emily, I didn't say that her medical records had been released or that her doctor has been interviewed. I said, even if those things did happen, they would simply be discounted by truthers by way of the reasons I suggested. (By the way, one news report that I read has stated that her doctor did induce labor before delivery.)

Obama released an even briefer medical summary document from his doctor last summer, as compliance to the call for his medical records. So that format appears to be the accepted process for medical verification these days, like it or not.

And yes, there are truthers on both sides of the political isle. The Obama birth certificate deniers are being just as loopy.

So Emily, what will your story be when Bristol delivers this month?

Has anyone read the "In Defense of Sarah Palin" article on the Daily Dish yet?

Anonymous said...

Dangerous on 10:42, thanks for your excellent post, it's great to have you here and it's always a great pleasure to read your sharp-witted posts!

Patrick

Anonymous said...

Isn't it interesting that all those lawyers, Democratic operatives and National Enquirer mudrakers who were, or still are, in Wasilla, Alaska, couldn't find anything to build a case on for this child switch?

Even the "love affair with her husband's old business partner" died a quiet death.

Anonymous said...

Craig, if we're so loopy, why do you keep arguing with us?

Oh, and did you read further posts from the writer of the piece you referenced on "The Daily Dish"? There have been a few updates. The defender you cited thinks that Palin's medical records weren't released so that it would cause a media backlash. Yeah...that makes a lot a sense! Her records were deliberately omitted. Great defense of Sarah Palin all right! Got anymore like that?

hector said...

CRAIG, CRAIG, CRAIG...

of the 2 options:

A. trig is SP's biological son

B. trig was birthed by BRISTOL
and thus SP's hoax pregnancy

there's no physical evidence to A, and lots of circumstantial evidence to B.

so, it is you who is holding to an opinion that is mostly built on belief and assumptions.

THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT SP GAVE BIRTH TO TRIG.

other than 3 or so pictures of SP seemingly pregnant, what do you have?

if you know of anything else, please submitted it here, i'll be the first to eat crow.

Anonymous said...

@dangerous.

Amen.

It would be easy to prove Palin was Trig's mother if it were true. Produce a medical record of a pre-natal doctor visit.

Why don't the Palinites embarrass the heck out of us who have been so crazy and obsessed about this by doing that?

They can't.

thegatekey said...

And the rabbit hole goes even deeper...

So who is erik99559?

As Audrey has stated, "His Flickr account shows two photos both uploaded, helpfully, on 8/31/2008."

Check out the soon to be deleted photo from the Alaska government website:

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

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

The cameraman is erik99559 !

So why is he dressed up in a suit on the Flickr page?

This leads to one conclusion only... the photo taken on April 13th showing a pregnant Palin is a setup. Andrea Gusty and her camera crew are in on the conspiracy.

Erik99559 has a lot of explaining to do. And so does Sarah Palin.

Love the site Audrey. Keep up the investigation.

--- The Gate Key

Anonymous said...

"in the middle of the night, put down the BlackBerries and pick up the breast pump."

That's hilarious. I'm a father of two (now grown) sons. When the babies woke to be fed in the night, I went and got them from the crib and brought to my wife, who never moved from the bed, let alone reached for a breast pump.

Just another little off-target line rooted in the fact that the whole story about Trig is untrue.

Emily said...

Craig, my mistake, since you lumped together something that has happened (birth certificate production) with three things that haven't, I was confused.

Honestly, if any of those things happen, I will acknowledge that I am wrong...sort of.

If Bristol delivers, then she is obviously not the mother. Does that mean Sarah is? Not necessarily. I'm not convinced that Sarah is the mother, but I'm also not convinced that Bristol is. The whole situation is just messed up and doesn't make sense.

If Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, or some other doctor who can prove that they were on call when Governor Palin went into labor comes out and says, "I delivered Trig Palin and Sarah Palin was the mother," then I will accept it and go on my merry way, only now thinking her a lunatic who risked her child's life on that airplane.

As for her medical records, sure, I'd believe them too.

See, that's all we want - concrete proof. And most of us aren't "truthers" who will deny such proof.

The problem is, it would have been easy for the Palins to release proof (pics of Sarah in the hospital holding Trig, his birth certificate, ANYTHING)...instead they threw their daughter under the bus on the national level.

Good job.

Anonymous said...

About the schedule of flights, the March 27th date for Anchorage to Juneau should be adjusted to accomodate the March 26th signing in the Museum in Juneau. The "Circa" could allow for that.

sandra in oregon

Anonymous said...

My response to Patrick Appel which he has yet to publish.

...how convenient that you point out the grainy quality of the pictures. First off the most grainy photo we have is the one supplied showing her supposedly pregnant with two men at the end of the Legislative session. A photo that was never officially dated and posted anonymously on Flickr. This is in stark contrast to the photo that was published dated 26th March which I myself discovered on Flickr. This photo is of high quality resolution and has been authenticated by the photographer herself.

Kathleen

Anonymous said...

two bluejays,
I assure you, this is Dan Carpenter- photog for KTUU in Anchorage. I do not know why he is dressed so formally in that pic or why he woukd post pics on flkr using a screen name. Perhaps Mr. Carpenter is providing us a clue because he has some insight into this issue. We already know McCallister won't talk since he's turned to the "Dark Side".
Anyhoo, I hope this ID helps. Keep up the good work gang...SP's con has to break open sooner or later.

mm in anc

Anonymous said...

Oh I love how you put this, Dangerous:

Exhibit D
'I went into labor in Texas with my fifth child and delivered that child in Alaska the next day after flying 12 hours and driving an hour and a half to a remote hospital without a NICU bypassing multiple opportunities to have myself checked by competent medical staff to have my triple-high-risk pregnancy induced to labor by my close friend non-OB/GYN family practitioner with expertise in child sexual abuse.'

This is the preposterous story that has drawn so many of us to this tale these many months now.

So OK - if a reporter says that Bristol was there at the hospital with a flat, non post-partum belly, I'll just go with Exhibit D. (I really don't buy into any other potential baby-mammas in this story.)

To me, Exhibit D means - Palin should not be trusted with anyone's life. Not a family member's, not an Alaskan's, and certainly not anyone from the other 49 states. PERIOD.

Tinfoil Hat accusors - be careful what you wish for.

twodot said...

Sarah, I was referring to the entry by guest-blogger Patrick Appel on The Daily Dish at:
08 Dec 2008 10:20 am
The interview with the TV reporters who were at Mat-Su hospital, re Bristol: "I thought, well, clearly there’s no way that that girl just delivered a baby seven hours ago."

Anonymous said...

To Craig,

Don't be an idiot and project what we might or might not have to say about testimony that hasn't ohappened or records that haven't been released. We would assess them and attempt to get independent confirmation of any records or statement made in testimony. We would also assess the quality of the questions to see if there was ambiguity that the person answering could exploit, and whether appropriate follow-up questions were answered.

This is standard procedure for accepting any evidence in a court of law for a reason. Anything else is subject to self-serving interpretatioin and manipulation. Collection of evidence for court is also subject to the adversial process, insuring that any evidence admitted for use in making a case has been reviewed by the other side with full disclosure and right to cross-examine. (That's the ideal, although it doesn't always happen that way.)

So any PR position, or argument without supporting evidence, is worthless demagogery, as are your recent posts. What evidence would satisfy you, Craig, that SP isn't Trig's mother? An admission by SP only? Perhaps a claim by some other woman that she's Trig's mother? Why won't you believe her as much as SP? You would want proof from her, right?

Craig, you are either part of getting to the truth or you're part of hiding it. You and others are in the second category. You should be calling for uneqivocal, verifable proof from SP to shut us all up and to defend your honor from me calling you an idiot.

Dangerous

Anonymous said...

Hello everybody,

I would also like to add that I always thought that those famous pictures posted on flickr by "erik99559" were "strange", but I never could pinpoint it to something specific - however, I always thought the facial expression of Sarah in these pictures seemed very, very strange. But that's of course no proof of anything.

Ok, let's look at something more factual. On the 13th April 2008 it was actually bittercold in Juneau! The whole day, the temperature was between one and four degree Celsius! I made a check about the weather history - please feel free to do it yourself - here are the results.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3092106145/

and

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3092107207/

So, what are Sarah and the journalist wearing? Well, if you ask me, their shoes look like "summer shoes". I don't think that people in Alaska would want to wear these type of shoes in this bittercold weather. But that's not absolute proof, too. However, it raises the suspicion that the picture could have been taken in the summer.

Regarding the photoshopping: We really need an expert here to get on the case. I was always very surprised for example about the poor quality of this picture - very grainy and quite unsharp.

There are a lot of open questions connected with this picture - and they should be answered, preferably by the people who are in the shot.

Patrick

Anonymous said...

Audrey,
I've been following your blog for a long time. I really appreciate all of the time and effort you've poured into validating your research regarding Sarah and Trig Palin.
I'm posting for the first time to ask if you've had any contact with Celtic Diva regarding her interaction with Sarah Palin on April 26th (8 days postpartum)?
In her April 29, 2008 blog post (archived on her old site, http://divasblueoasis.blogspot.com/), Celtic Diva described the events of “The Gathering” of Veterans Aviation Outreach that was held on April 26, 2008. Sarah Palin attended the event and there is a photo of her from that day. (In my opinion, Sarah DOES NOT look postpartum at all!)
“She showed up towards the end in sweats (and looked perky and cute...in sweats...sheesh, what is it about those cheerleaders?) with NO entourage. She actually rushed from taking the baby to the hospital for some tests, then taking him to her parents' so they could watch him, then running to our event so she could at least catch the tail-end.”
Celtic Diva stated that she had a “preemie” conversation with Gov Palin. “I'd like to be able to say that we talked about substantive and important issues of the day but we actually talked about preemie kids (my daughter was 32 1/2 weeks)...which was substantive and important to us.”
My apologies to you if this lead has already addressed.
Thanks for all your hard work!
Melissa in California

Anonymous said...

The Gate Key, 11:31:

Great work!! Found Dan Carpenter - you know has some explaining to do!! GOTCHA.

Patrick

Sunshine1970 said...

Re the screen name of Dan Carpenter I've seen posts about.

I don't use my real name anywhere I post or upload photos to. I'm Sunshine1970 here, another place I'm erikak1970 or erik-a, or Sultana of Persia, or Sunflower1970. They all have to do with hobbies or books I've enjoyed over the years.

Mr. Dan Carpenter may be doing the same thing on his flicker album page.

Anonymous said...

Great find - thegatekey! That is the same guy, IDed as Dan Carpenter. Why he posted that on Flicker the day Palin got announced is a mystery. Perhaps he could be in hot water, now, for doing so. But he IDed himself in the photo caption. Not smart! Or else someone named Erik betrayed him and posted it and wrote the "myself".

I don't think the pic was staged, just because he was in a suit. And the box enplanation from an earlier post is so true. Many places have you set stuff out in the hallway to be disposed of.

That photo doesn't guarantee there is a real baby underneath her clothes.

Maybe Dan can come forward and give us his impressions of her, that day.

Anonymous said...

Okay, so maybe I am way craaazy here but did anoyone notice that the letter from CBJ never says "Gov. Palin" prior to anything about Trig? It's "Routine testing found.." "She followed normal..." "THIS child Trig..." "...able to go home with his mother". Maybe I am totally splitting hairs. I guess one can safely assume that the "she" in the letter is SP but maybe not!

Anonymous said...

Let's keep things straight, everybody. Sarah Palin is not Trig's mother. Bristol may or may not be. Bristol may have a baby this month. She may not. If she does, it doesn't show that Trig is Sarah's son. How could it?

Medical records would show that Trig was Sarah's son. A doctor who delivered Trig speaking on record would show that Trig was Sarah's son. Etc. Bristol having a baby is a separate issue.

On the other hand, if Bristol does NOT have a baby this month....

GraceR said...

question for those who may know about DS babies....do they have difficulty suckling at the breast and do better with a bottle nipple? (My children were all healthy but my only daughter did not do well at the breast and I pumped for her and bottle-fed her most of the time; otherwise, she was very cranky when hungry but just wouldn't breastfeed. My 3 boys--no problem).

Anonymous said...

I wish we could leave Bristol out of this. This is about Sarah. Either she is Trig's mom or she isn't. What Bristol did or didn't do may be related but it is still a side issue. Let's keep our eyes on the ball!

Anonymous said...

Craig @ 11.02

Please go away and start up a blog of your own which discusses "The Birth Certificate of Obama". We are not interested. End of. Period.

Anonymous said...

Probably Erik Whoever took the pic that included Mr. Carpenter. It was only speculation that the guy on the left was Erik, yes? So maybe the poster that knows Mr Carpenter might ask him who took the picture.

Not that I think we will learn anything. He will just say, yeah, she looked pregnant. And indeed she does, in this picture. We need to find ANOTHER picture from this time period, not keep dwelling on the ones we already have that tell us nothing.

Anonymous said...

To Craig 11:02

Not surprisingly, you are wrong about Barack's Obama medical information that was released prior to the election.

Although this is an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with Sarah Palin, just for the record:

Barack Obama has, contrary to republican disinformation, released very detailed information about his health and his previous health checks. For the details, see the following link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/us/politics/20health.html?_r=1&8br=&pagewanted=all

Regarding Barack Obama's health - from the New York Times (October 2008):

"Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, 47, the Democratic presidential nominee, released a one-page, undated letter from his personal physician in May stating that he was in excellent health. Late last week, his campaign released the results of standard laboratory tests and electrocardiograms from his checkups in June 2001, November 2004 and January 2007. The findings were normal."

That is ten times more than Sarah Palin released (and will ever release...).

It's interesting to see that the Palinites now try to bring up Barack Obama all the time (birth certificate, medical records) in a desperate attempt to kill the rumours. They will not succeed. Your pretty ultra-conservative postergirl Sarah Palin has too many corpses in the cellar, and once you start digging, it will get ugly.

Patrick

Anonymous said...

Palin doesn't want this story to end. She enjoys the limelight.

People who want the controversy to end, please provide empirical evidence.

As much as she's been photographed just paste together consecutive days of photos of her. Probably won't take you much longer than typing a response on here.

Or provide links to say ten pics of her 'showing'

Thanks

Anonymous said...

Grace @12.33

In the early days of breast feeding I would pump and leave supplies in the fridge for the times when I was unavailable - including a few overnight stays with my girl's grandparents.

If SP needed to bottle feed due to Trig's down syndrome she could have done the same for evening feeds.

Another case of her over imaginative mind I guess. She really wants to prove herself as a "Warrior Princess".

hrh said...

Anonymous at 12:28p:

That's why lawyers get paid those big bucks, to do exactly what you're noticing. Ambiguity reigns!

Those two pages took weeks to appear, and you know each word was sweated over to produce......something that actually said nothing.

Anonymous said...

The Daily Dish has Patrick quoting a reported at the hospital:
Sarah [Palin] was in another room, and they said that she was sleeping when we arrived. And so, we got a little bit of footage of Sally [Heath] holding Trig, and Chuck [Heath] standing next to her. And Bristol [Palin] was in there, and I said to Bristol, "We should get some footage of you and your brother and your grandparents." And she’s like, "No I really don’t like to be photographed." And I said, "Are you sure?" And she’s like, "Yeah, yeah, no." And she didn’t have any make-up on or anything, but she was dressed in typical teenage attire, a tight shirt, low-cut jeans, you know, and we had heard the rumors before the delivery of this baby also, that Bristol was pregnant, and so, when my photographer and I got to the hospital and we saw her, I thought, well, clearly there’s no way that that girl just delivered a baby seven hours ago.
*****
This is interesting:
a. It is unclear whether they saw Sarah in the hospital.
b. Bristol was there
c. Chuck Heath "broke" the water breaking story. Otherwise, Palin's deceptions would have remained private.
d. Sarah's parents were apparently not in on the faked pregnancy story.
e. Bristol w/o makeup and not wanting her picture taken seems a little odd, but most likely she was holding Trig when the camera crew arrived.
f. If Bristol didn't look like she delivered 7 hours earlier, it could be due to having delivered 2-3 days earlier, and having to wait for Sarah's return from Texas.
g. age 16-17 teenagers can learn how to keep their silence when threatened with statutory rape charges. (item g responds to the end of Patrick's post.)

Anonymous said...

I appreciate Audrey's logical tone in all of her posts, but the tone of some of the comments is starting to concern me. I'm undecided on this rumor still, so maybe I'm being oversensitive, but I thought the point of this blog was to ask *all* the questions needed to expose the truth. However, many of the commenters seem only interested in asking the questions that expose their personal version of the truth. For example, the people telling "Craig" that they don't want to hear what he has to say because they don't agree with him and absolute comments like "You're either trying to uncover the truth or trying to hide it". I know most people have made up their mind on this rumor one way or the other, but that's no reason to stop asking *any* question or to try and suppress the opinion of those you don't agree with. Anyway, done with rant.
GT

Anonymous said...

Look at the metadata about the Flickr photo by Erik: if correct, it was taken at 11:29 p.m. But why does it list 2005 as the year?

Anonymous said...

There is a Facebook page of Erik Elam here:

http://www.facebook.com/people/Erik-Elam/21906512

His profile photo shows him on an island in Alaska and he lists various Alaska politicians as his favorite people.

Does anyone here have a Facebook account so they can look at this user's photo album?

Anonymous said...

Look at the two pictures again.

I don't know anything about photoshopping a picture but it looks like someone used the EXACT SAME photo of SP in each.

In the first photo, SP is standing staight, looking ahead, with her hands clapsed together.
The second one is EXACTLY the same.

In the first photo, her cuff on the right is folded up.
The second photo the cuff is EXACTLY the same.

Look at how the collar of her black jacket comes a dab higher on the right. On the left side, the flag pin weighs down the fabric.
The second photo is EXACYLY the same.

Look at her hair and facial expression.
In BOTH photos they are EXACTLY the same.

It's as if someone took this one photo and angled them differently to make it look like separate shots.

Either that or this is a mannequin of Sarah that was lifted and put into each photo.

Anonymous said...

That metadata on the Flickr photo can be found here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30076181@N02/2814979078/meta/in/datetaken

Emily said...

Anonymous @ 1:21 pm.

You can set your camera's time and date to anything.

Everytime I charge the batteries on mine, it resets to December 31st, 2004, 12:00 AM.

Sunshine1970 said...

@Anon December 8, 2008 1:21 PM

Don't trust the Exif data. It can be a guide for dating photographs, but only if the camera operator has set the date/timestamp. This camera's date was not set correctly.

palin pregnancy truth said...

This is the route to go! We will not be able to obtain medical records or anything else conclusive and Palin can continue to ignore the questions.

However, they will have some real explaining to do if this picture turns out to be fake/staged. And we will have left Bristol completely out of it! We should continue to research it.

Craig said...

Well, Dangerous, you've certainly revealed yourself to be in the camp in which the only truth is the conspiracy.

That is the key element for a truther. "I know what the real answer should be. Now we just have to assemble the right pieces and discard the ill-fitting ones to get to that answer." If you eliminate all the official information and on-the-record quotes as being invalid, you can then fill in your self-imposed void with the necessary circumstancial and speculative pieces to rework the equation in your favor.

Because that is all you really have.

I would like to see one person, in a position to know, come out and say that something isn't quite right about Sarah being the mom. Just one. So many very sharp people have been up there in Alaska for months specifically digging for evidence to counter the official story, that surely something would have broken? Sarah has plently of political enemies, now more than ever. She has plenty of media enemies as well who would LOVE to pop the Palin balloon. With all these forces at work, no one can do much more than compare preggo pictures, proms, and medical summary letter critiques?

So Sarah and her handlers, who can't seem to do a PR event for Thanksgiving right, can stump all the professionals out to get her, and silence everyone who would know otherwise, after a bizarre and brazen baby switch?

Come on Dangerous, is this really how this would work out if the truth wasn't already in the books?

Conspiracies happen, but not in this case.

Craig said...

Patrick, my point was that Obama also issued a short medical summary from his doctor, which was meant to represent a release of medical records. Same as Sarah. I've read them both.

I don't give two flips about the Obama birth certification story. It is also a goofy process, being persued by people who don't want to accept that he is a citizen. Tin foil hats can fit a person of any political persuasion.

GraceR said...

"So, what are Sarah and the journalist wearing? Well, if you ask me, their shoes look like "summer shoes". I don't think that people in Alaska would want to wear these type of shoes in this bittercold weather. But that's not absolute proof, too."

uh...we need far better proof than shoes (no wonder some people say we are wearing tinfoil hats!). I suspect in very bitter weather, Alaskans, like many others, may wear furry boots outdoors and change into more appropriate footwear when indoors and working.

rachel said...

Forgive me if this is a repeat. See this post by Sullivan's guest blogger. Have you been able to talk to Lori Tipton? http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/in-defense-of-s.html

Anonymous said...

Dan Carpenter is not listed in KTUU's staff list, but I'm sure KTUU would provide his contact information for verification that that is or isn't him in the photo.

KTUU's contact information page is here:

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=5681982

Craig said...

So Hector, since I don't have a video of Trig coming out of Sarah's birth canal (to put it delicately), and you have pictures comparing the sizes of pregnant women, I am at a disadvantage?

There is no one who is in a position to have direct knowledge (or even second-hand knowledge) of who the mother is, who is questioning the validity of Sarah being the mother. I'd say that soundly trumps your "circumstancial" puffs of smoke.

luna1580 said...

patrick (& kathleen) you leave logical comments and are brilliant flickr detectives. thank you.

but i don't think the women's shoes in the april 13th pic are of much note, both appear to be black wedge or loafer-style low heels that show the skin on the top of the foot behind the toes, a common style for women.

here's the thing- 39/40 degrees F (4 C) just isn't that cold. not after a much colder winter. i also looked up juneau's weather history for 2008 (not all that different than where i grew up, chicago, thought it would be colder) and february was the coldest month mostly 32F to 0F with about 5 days dipping below zero (-18C) in the first half of the month, than hovering more around freezing (32F). in april it's warming up and, by may it's mostly 40's and 50's.

after a cold winter i'd often see people in just tee-shirts when the 40's-50's weather broke in the spring. if the april dates for the photo are correct, well it hit 50F about a week later, and that psychologically makes it "spring! warm! yeah!" for most cold-winter residents.

do you live in the UK? it never gets "below zero (F,-18C)" there. a yearly climate graph i pulled at the weather site didn't even show anything colder than 20F (-6.7C) which i can't imagine! but in the american upper-midwest and north as far as you can go, it's standard winter stuff.

luna

(craig and other palinites, look! we question each other and think critically, seek to inform from different places and perspectives. very mindless truther, no?)

Anonymous said...

What I find odd, it that in the first photo, Sarah is out of focus, yet Andrea G is more in focus. Sarah actually appears to be closer to the camera. Obviously flash would have been used to take the picture, so this would have eliminated problems with movement that could cause her to be out of focus!! Just a thought.

ella said...

This is GOOD stuff:
http://ozmud.wordpress.com/

Anonymous said...

Wow -- I think the interesting thing about the Lori Tipton interview (she is the reporter who wrote the birth announcement story with the pictures of the (great) grandparents) is another acknowledgment of the Bristol pregnancy rumors before Trig's birth...

"we had heard the rumors before the delivery of this baby"

Anonymous said...

Here's my question: Adding five days or so Palin's already pregnant abdomen, would you "not notice" that she was pregnant if she boarded a flight? If she really looked like that in April, how could no one on the flight notice she was pregnant? Didn't a flight attendant say that she didn't look pregnant (or something like that) Well, she certainly looks quite pregnant to me in those photos!

Alex said...

Great comparison on the OZ Mudflats link, Ella. That's what I've thought all along, but how wonderful to have it expressed so clearly in comparison with a "normal" birth by a "normal" woman governor acting "normally." That's what WE're all talking about here, when we say it just doens't make sense. There is no more media-maniacal time in ANY woman's life than the birth of her child-- think of your own child's birth. Photos and video in delivery, in the room, leaving the hospital, the first shots of the newly-expanding family. Inlaws, friends. The whole shebang. Thanks, Ella! Great link! And funny to think that the story has power even in Australia. . .

Anonymous said...

We have continually encountered problems distinguishing pictures of Bristol from those of Willow. Perhaps the reporters saw Willow at the hospital and thought it was Bristol. Willow seemed to have matured very rapidly, and the reporters may not have seen her for a while.

sandra in oregon

Ellie said...

Could we lighten up a bit guys? Although I disagree w/Craig on his views of who Trig's mom is, I agree that we are looking for the TRUTH. We do not need to convince anyone or belittle anyone, and questions and dissenting viewpoints should be tolerated otherwise we ARE crackpot truthers. If the posts really upset you personally, skip over the posts from that person, you don't have to read them. And Craig, could you not continue posting that you do not believe Audrey's research? A good response might refer to a possible reason for the photo's graininess, and idea how to contact Dan Carpenter etc. Either help search for the truth to prove you're are correct, or leave the site and do not belittle people who are seeking the truth. We need to raise the level of our discourse and stop being so sensitive. Obama is not the issue, Bristol is not the issue. The mystery we are trying to solve is whether or not Sarah Palin is Trig's biological mother.

Anonymous said...

KTUU's Lori Tipton is friends with a local radio personality in Anchorage: Bob Lester...who is an extremely staunch and vehement Palin supporter and family friend.

...a little something to add to the broth.

jeanie said...

To G at 1:15 -

I think the message to Craig was perfectly valid. The point of THIS site/blog is to get to the truth of the matter of Trig Palin's birth. The seeking of other truths (i.e. Obama's birth certificate) is fine - we can start a whole debate on the grassy knoll, too, if you'd like - but that would best be done in a different venue.

Poor Audrey must be running on very little sleep trying to keep up with all of these posts! You go girl!

luna1580 said...

@graceR

yes it CAN be much harder to breastfeed a DS baby, as they have poor muscle tone and control (they are "floppy doll" babies) it can be physically hard for them to suckle. here is a link to La Leche League's page on it -they are about as pro-breast feeding as it's humanly possible to be, and even they admit it's difficult.

DS breastfeeding

@anon talking about "2 identical SP pictures..."

which 2 pictures do you mean? and for the record the idea of a "palin mannequin" is laughable. i'm not knocking you for brainstorming many possibilities (that's good) but we still need to think them through (that's better.) the amount of time, money, and outside specialized technicians (who probably live in L.A. or with peter jackson's studios in new zealand=not alaska) to make a photo-realistic "fake sarah" like a movie prop is utterly unrealistic.

what is realistic, in the case of the april "w/belly" pics, is either:

A. sarah palin was faking a belly with a device like this

empathy belly

B. sarah palin was pregnant with her fifth child, trig


i lean towards A., if true this means she lied, A LOT. remember how we don't like our politician to do that? remember how mad people were when bill clinton told a lie about someone polishing his knob?

if B. is true then she callously and wildly endangered the life and health of her child and self in the "wild ride" insanity. something i've said over and over i feel is actually a WORSE reflection on her capacity to make sound judgments and could be pursued RIGHT NOW as it is her own official line.

the woman it not fit to lead anybody, in either case. poor alaska, let's hope she doesn't use any MORE of their tax money to put her kids up in five star hotels at event s they weren't invited to, fire more people through possible abuse of power, build questionable homes for her family, or anything worse.

luna

mk2000 said...

It seems to me that the man holding the vid camera in the first photo is Bill Mcallister, who happens to now be her press secretary, right? Same silver and gray wavy hair, same body shape. Now, why is he and the other photographer appearing in a picture with Palin with a different shirt on the same (supposed) evening?? This proves, to me at least, that these photos were staged, probably after the birth of Trig and early in her VP nomination to quelsh rumors. Also, notice the difference in Palin's weight. She clearly packed on some pounds in the last month as evidenced in April photos. Although her body was hidden with the big black coat, her face was visibly fuller. In these pictures, her face and body look much slimmer. So does anyone else think the cameraman could be Mcallister?

Anonymous said...

Palinites,

I love reading these posts and trying to figure out who are the Palinites.

Craig and GraceR are definitely pro-Palin. They will probably continue to deny that SP did not give birth to Trig even if and when the truth comes out to state otherwise.

One thing that I can say about Audrey and the truthseekers on this blog, once there is confirmation (medical records, Trig's birth certicate, actual physician statement stating that SP gave birth to Trig or some evidence of substance)most, and definitely Audrey, will say o.k. maybe Palin stretched the truth on the circumstances leading up to the birth but Trig is definitely her biological child. Right now, Craig and GraceR, we just don't have the proof that Sarah gave birth to Trig. The burden of proof is on you. Please shut us up.

You are a supporter, contact SP and urge her to provide definite proof. We know you are concerned or irritated with this blog and others out there like this one because if you weren't, you wouldn't log on and comment so negatively. Get with it! I want to be proved wrong. Provide us with the 'nail in the coffin'.

Do you not think it's odd that SP won't just prove this conspiracy theory wrong by just releasing the birth certificate or providing definite and sound physician comments? You keep bringing up Obama's birth certicate conspiracy theory but you fail to mention that he did release a copy of a certified short version of his birth certificate and that a state of HI official stated that the actual BC was on file. Even Factcheck confirmed it. Of course, this release,verified info was not good enough for those out there who just don't want the man in office anyway. But we can't even get a short form birth certificate for Trig Palin. NO ONE not even Dr. CBJ in SP's medical letter has come out and directly stated that SP is the birth mother of Trig Palin, and that they were at the delivery and know that SP gave birth. This is what we want to hear. Please advise if you can provide this information. We are anxiously awaiting confirmation. Thanks!

Alex said...

Nice theory, MK2000. SP calls on friends to "help her" squelch rumors. All in good fun-- a mavericky prank! "Hey, boys, they just didn't believe I was pregnant, so will you help me show them?" I like it. You Alaskans sure are some crafty folks.

Anonymous said...

luna,

thanks a lot for your praise! But we shouldn't forget that there are lots of other people on this blog who are equally logical and deliver great work. Without all the bloggers and readers, this site would be nothing.

I agree that the shoes are not conclusive proof. However, it would at least be a reason to address a question to the infamous Mr Dan Carpenter (and his colleagues).

And yes, we are not fanatical truthseekers, but open to criticsm and new suggestions. We don't know all the answers yet. Many mysteries remain. Sarah Palin doesn't bother to answer the questions and/or produce a single piece of paper of evidence which would prove that she has given birth to Trig. I don't believe that she will ever produce evidence...because there is none.

By the way, I think Sarah Palin should open a shop selling those magic scarfs..."pregnancy without a big belly, guaranteed!"

Maybe after her political career is over...

;-)

Patrick

Diana said...

I just uploaded photos showing Sarah Palin and her family from approx. Nov 2007 to Nov 2008. 137 pictures. I know you have a lot of photos but maybe we have missed something in one of the photos. Maybe we can catalog in order and see?? Does anyone have any other photos we haven't seen?? It maybe that we are sitting on something and don't even realize it. I can't be the only one collecting the pictures. Anyone else with pictures not shown in this group???

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33163903@N05/?deleted=3094177634

Anonymous said...

To mk2000: I don't think the camera man is McAllister. The cameraman seems to be larger and is wearing a white shirt. McAllister has on a grey shirt.

sandra in oregon

Anonymous said...

KTUU doesn't list the cameramen on their Meet the News Team page, but Dan Carpenter's name is all over the site with photocredits. Just do a search. He has taken most of the stills on there.

It is true that he could use a different name for his Flicker account - but these are the only two photos on Flicker by erik - nothing else, only on August 31, 2008, and the photo caption says "myself". Why Use that term? If he wanted to be more anonymous, he could have just written "Dan Carpenter" or "person unknown" and then no one would have known if he posted it or not. Curious.

Someone wanted to make this photo available to the public when Palin got announced. Maybe Todd is Erik! He, or someone else did a lot of quick work on Palin's Wiki page that day, and actually signed themselves Trig. Weird.

Silver Salmon said...

Okay. Question for you.

If the person in the picture is Dan Carpenter, why is he holding a camera for KTVA?

Carpenter works for KTUU. Google "Dan Carpenter" and KTUU and you'll see him credited for KTUU stuff. Googling "Dan Carpenter" and KTVA leads to nothing except KTUU references.

I don't have Photoshop on my computer or any related skills, but the sticker on the back of the camera says "SCOTT". The only Scott I'm finding for KTVA is anchor Reagan Scott.

The camera was on in the photo. I don't know if it was rolling, but the light on top of it is on.

The photo was taken at the state house. The architecture and doors match the other Palin photo which shows the Secretary of State's office in the background.

Anonymous said...

Diana 3:52

Thanks a lot for uploading all these photos, that was an excellent and very helpful job!

I know that you have already seen my flickr-photostream - I will get in touch with you over my flickr-page.

By the way:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33163903@N05/3094177598/

is AWESOME ;;;---)))

And

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33163903@N05/3093321405/

gives the clue to the whole puzzle!! ;-)

And my flickr-photostream is here:

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

Patrick

Anonymous said...

I am pretty sure that this was the camera man:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/11/08/2008-11-08_sarah_palin_snaps_back_at_sources-1.html

Patrick

artful_dodger said...

Here is my photoshop analysis of photo 1:
First, the hairs (and I do mean "hairs"- those little fuzzies that halo our heads, individual hairs that do their own thing no matter what we might want them to do) are apparent on Palin, completely absent on the reporter, and only visible at the point where the camera meets the head on the camera man. The point where his hair makes contact with the hallway wall does not show these individual hairs.
Second, At the point where the reporter's left arm and the cameraman's left arm meet, the camerman's shirt is unusually sharp and angular.
Third, Palin is not as sharp as the other two in this photo.
Fourth, the reporter has her feet placed squarely on some lighting wires. To my mind, most people would push them aside in some fashion and not just stand directly on them as it affects one's balance.
SO...I think that Palin was photographed alone WITH the light (and it's wiring) shown to the right of the photograph. Later, Cameraman posed with the reporter at another location and this was added to the photo. Presto, the McCain campaign has their proof of Palin's pregnancy. Maybe this is why the lighting and junk in the hall seem to point to this being a weekend, after hours job. This, I believe, is also why Palin seems to be looking more toward the lighting than the camera or the reporter. At the time, that was all that was there to focus on. Just my two cents....Still working on the second photo.

Craig said...

I am not pro-Palin in that I think she is some awesome candidate for national office. In fact, if she is the best the Republicans will have in 2012, I can assure you that Obama will win re-election handily (unless he proves to be incompetent). Her base is simply too limited. Enthusiastic, but limited.

You know why Sarah doesn't have to prove anything to you? Because she has no real pressure to do so. The media sees no reason to pursue it. Her political enemies don't have anything to base an effective smear campaign on. The large majority of the public either believes her or feels its water under the bridge now and that it is irrelevant to what is important today.

Why? Because there is NOTHING out there. No credible source. No undisclosed source that a reporter would be willing to stick his or her neck out for. Nothing but these scattered blogs comparing preggo pictures and such. Nothing, despite the best efforts of professional snoopers and partisan operatives, who have virtually lived in Alaska for months.

Nothing.

Obama has slightly more powerful forces trying to move the whole birth certificate story forward (they did, after all, get the Supreme Court to at least consider accepting their case), but even they can't put enough political or public pressure on Obama to have him make any extra efforts on his part.

Which is good, since I think their case is without credible enough merit.

When the general consensus in the media and the public is with Sarah being the mother, the burden of proof is on YOU. Not Sarah.

Anonymous said...

to luna1580 who said:
~~~talking about "2 identical SP pictures..." ~~~

~~~which 2 pictures do you mean? and for the record the idea of a "palin mannequin" is laughable. i'm not knocking you for brainstorming many possibilities (that's good) but we still need to think them through (that's better.) the amount of time, money, and outside specialized technicians (who probably live in L.A. or with peter jackson's studios in new zealand=not alaska) to make a photo-realistic "fake sarah" like a movie prop is utterly unrealistic. ~~~

I think you were responding to my comments @ 1:28 PM

I was commenting on the two pictures on Audrey's "BREAKING NEWS: KTVA Has LOTS of unseen footage of Palin. Really. They do."

~~~
I see should have been clearer and added that I was being sarcastic when I said, ~~~"It's as if someone took this one photo and angled them differently to make it look like separate shots.

Either that or this is a mannequin of Sarah that was lifted and put into each photo.~~~"

What I was serious about was that the pictures do look exactly the same. Open two browsers and line them up side by side.
I think you'll agree with what I said, which is worth repeating:

~~~In the first photo, SP is standing staight, looking ahead, with her hands clapsed together.
The second one is EXACTLY the same.

In the first photo, her cuff on the right is folded up.
The second photo the cuff is EXACTLY the same.

Look at how the collar of her black jacket comes a dab higher on the right. On the left side, the flag pin weighs down the fabric.
The second photo is EXACYLY the same.

Look at her hair and facial expression.
In BOTH photos she looks EXACTLY the same.~~~

Craig said...

"KTUU's Lori Tipton is friends with a local radio personality in Anchorage: Bob Lester...who is an extremely staunch and vehement Palin supporter and family friend."

See, this is why it is bogus when people say "well, if Sarah produces a birth certificate for Trig, we will accept it and go away". Any statement made by someone, such as, in this case, a reporter who has had direct contact with Sarah and Bristol, is not going to be put in the "pro-Sarah's story" column. It will be spun to discredit it and then discard it, and keep the conspiracy narrative alive.

The same will happen to any similar direct source or document that comes along, that favors Sarah being the mother. Which is why many people who promote this stuff are not "truthseekers", they are conspiracy seekers.

Look at it this way. If she releases a legitimate birth certificate, the conspiracy seekers will simply say "FAKE". And those who forgot about it or give her the benefit of the doubt will say "So, why does she feel the need to prove herself suddenly? How odd."

So, its really a no-win situation for her, even when telling the truth.

Think about it.

Anonymous said...

I haven't read all the responses yet, so if someone has commented on it before: Sorry about the duplicity!
One thing that caught my eye was the following statement: "The interview with the TV reporters who were at Mat-Su hospital, re Bristol: "I thought, well, clearly there’s no way that that girl just delivered a baby seven hours ago." "
WHY WOULD THE REPORTER THINK THAT AT THAT POINT IN TIME (in April), WHEN THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS SUPPOSEDLY ABOUT WETHER SP IS THE MOTHER OR BRISTOL???

just me

Sarah said...

Anonymous said...

I haven't read all the responses yet, so if someone has commented on it before: Sorry about the duplicity!
One thing that caught my eye was the following statement: "The interview with the TV reporters who were at Mat-Su hospital, re Bristol: "I thought, well, clearly there’s no way that that girl just delivered a baby seven hours ago." "
WHY WOULD THE REPORTER THINK THAT AT THAT POINT IN TIME (in April), WHEN THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS SUPPOSEDLY ABOUT WETHER SP IS THE MOTHER OR BRISTOL???

just me


I thought this too at first -- but if you read the statement from the reporter again, the reporter references the RUMORS about Bristol that were already circulating. There WERE questions at that point about who was the mother. It isn't a strange comment if you take that into consideration.

palin pregnancy truth said...

We should all just ignore Craig. This blog is not about Obama's birth certificate.

The first thing that struck me is that Gusty does not look like a reporter about to go on TV. She doesn't look like she's wearing make-up. Compare it to the pic at her bio:

http://www.ktva.com/anchors/ci_6613755

Also, notice that she is part Yup'ik. Any chance that she is related to Todd?

And she is on facebook if anyone wants to friend her and find out more.

Anonymous said...

WE HAVE FOUND SOMETHING!!!

To be precise, I have to say, that Kathleen, my dear girlfriend, who was the one who discovered the "nail in the coffin picture" from 26 March 2008, has looked at the two infamous pregnancy pictures again and shouted in excitement a few minutes ago:

"THE NECKLACE? WHERE IS THE NECKLACE??"

And you would not believe it: In the frontal picture Sarah Palin is wearing a necklace - and in the picture where she is shown from the side, the necklace has disappeared!! It is clearly NOT THERE any more. How can that be?

Here is the comparison of the two pictures (neck area, blown up):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3093518201/

Here are the full pictures again, uploaded into my photostream:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3093436517/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3093436171/in/photostream/

And here is Dan Carpenter alias Erik99559:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3093436895/in/photostream/

So, now we need are REALLY THOROUGH investigation whether these pictures are photoshopped or not. Photoshop experts, please take over!!

I am not saying that this is the conclusive proof, BUT now we can leave no stone unturned.

Patrick

Anonymous said...

Silver - Dan Carpenter isn't holding a camera at all. Dan is the guy on the left in the second photo -with Palin in the middle and McAllister on the right!

Anonymous said...

HOLY COW! MK 2000 has nailed it!

It IS Bill McAllister holding the video camera in the picture showing the very pregnant-looking Sarah seemingly being Interviewed by Andrea Gusty. Go ahead and search Google/images using "Bill McAllister, Alaska" as search terms. You will find at least half a dozen pictures of McCallister. Now note the unique shape of his ear in the pretend-interview pic -- and then focus on his ears in the Goggled pics. It's the same guy.

But - HE WAS ALREADY PALIN'S PRESS SECRETARY IN APRIL! This is a staged picture. He worked at KTUU (same place Palin worked as a newscaster) but was hired by Palin early this year, I think. So it looks like he got some of his old friends in the media to help him stage a video news shoot. That's why you can't find the video from the scene in the TV station's archive -- the station did not shoot the video.

I ASSUME YOU ARE FOLLOWING THIS, BILL. NICE TRY!

Brad S.

Anonymous said...

This is not about analyzing photos. It is just a word to the increased presence of Palin sympathizers on this blog.

Sarah Palin was selected for her sex appeal. Period. She's the naughty librarian.

Nothing wrong with being naughty once in a while, but you defenders know perfectly well that Sarah Palin does not have the smarts or ethics to hold national office. And she is in-your-face PROUD of her ignorance!

So the next time you talk about how "real" she is, just substitute "hot" and admit that's what is really on your mind.

From what we have learned so far, though, her heart is as cold as a witch's tit.

FishEye

luna1580 said...

@craig

since you care enough to follow this blog and comment, you should care enough to do a little research, even as very little as reading through the main site page and audrey's actually blog pieces that deal with the health risks of SP's birth story as she herself has given it.

if you find anything in another medically sound source that would corroborate the idea that dr. CBJ would have seen no risk in SP's travel plans and thus approved them from texas to alaska please show it here.

find a single other doctor who thinks her (SP) actions were signs of sound, informed judgement putting neither herself, her child, or anyone else at risk.

this doesn't require anything other than proving that THE TRUTH AS PALIN HERSELF HAS GIVEN IT was normal, risk-free behavior for for a mother in her mid-40's who was leaking amniotic fluid (hence entering labor) in a pregnancy of a known DS child, a month before her due date, leading to possible cord-compression, infection or unplanned delivery with no medical support to a child that could present under-developed lungs, a heart defect, a gastrointestinal blockage, or any other birth complication not even related to his DS status, month-early delivery, and advanced maternal age.

you know cause none of those are real risks to him or her, there's NOTHING there. yeah right.

learn a little about birth, there are REASONS so many women and children did not survive it before modern medical support. "back in the day" in conditions like if it happened in the aisle of an airplane or back seat of a car on an alaskan road.

luna

Anonymous said...

Craig,

You are comical. Yes, you are an in the closet Palinite. Unfortunately, you just can't admit it. Whomever the burden of proof lies upon, I hope that these type blogs continue until the truth is revealed. And you are wrong, babygate is a concern of SP and her supporters because if it was not she wouldn't mention it in interviews and you wouldn't be on this blog communicating about something you really know to be untrue. I, personally, don't visit those websites talking about President-Elect's Obama's birth certificate because I know it's not factual.

But keep on blogging, you just make the subject more interesting because we know you care and it really bothers you that SP might get caught in her web of lies.

Anonymous said...

Diana - your photo collection is great!

I would suggest that on the last page (8) - you have Bristol and Willow mixed up on 3 of them. Bristol has the dark eyebrows - so top row - Bristol or Willow? That is Willow.

Third row, first pic, should be Willow,Trig,Bristol(holding him)

Bottom one with Mercede and baby - that is Bristol.

luna1580 said...

to everyone reading this (not just craig)

there are ONLY two valid reasons SP wouldn't have gone to a hospital in texas to be checked out, make sure it was amniotic fluid (not a little urine), etc.:

*she knew any doctor who actually saw her might not (highly probably would not) give a go-ahead to travel back to alaska and having the baby born there was more important to her and todd than her own and the baby's safety -which IS CRAZY.

*she wasn't pregnant.

that's it, only two. calling a doctor thousands of miles away who could not do a physical exam is not a valid way of "checking out" her physical situation, period.

GraceR said...

anonymous @3:44 p.m., I am NOT a pro-Palin supporter. In fact, I was employed by the DNC for many years. I'm just trying to look at ALL evidence---that supporting the theory that Trig is SP's child and that which refutes it. If we don't look at ALL the evidence, we ARE just tin-foil hat-wearers and no one will take us seriously.

A poster stated earlier that perhaps SP was so in denial/depressed about a. finding herself pregnant just as her career was skyrocketing, and then b. finding out the baby had DS, that she psychotically tried everything to hide the pregnancy in order to deny it, going so far as to bind her belly, literally starving herself, exercising fanatically, etc. Perhaps she was even on meds for depression (which could be why no medical records---CBJ only said she was not on any ongoing meds, which I found odd). SP's own statements point to someone who was clearly not happy about this pregnancy. This COULD be a very valid theory. In other words, I'm attempting to keep an open mind about EVERY possible theory here, which I believe is what Audrey is trying to do also.

In any event, as I've said before, I will never believe that her water broke in Texas. I just find it odd that the first person who mentioned it was her father.

Anonymous said...

Hi Audrey,

I love the the site (the only blog I read daily), but I wonder about how you searched KTVA and got no results. I got 80 hits for the time period you specified.

I searched here: http://www.ktva.com/archivesearch

Enter search terms: sarah palin

Appearing: anywhere in the story

Specify range: 01/01/2008 - 07/18/2008

Doing so yields 80 news stories that mention Sarah Palin. But only the headlines are displayed and you have to pay to read any of them.

Ski-Daddle

artful_dodger said...

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

I do think the cameraman in photo 1 is Bill McAllister. Compare the hairline, color and thin areas with the above known photo of him. But then, why not him? He was a cameraman, after all. Was he appointed as press secretary at the time of this photo or was it after? I believe it was in August. Hmmm, how very convenient since this was around the time that the photo appeared, was it not? The real question is, why the different shirt in the second photo? A different day, perhaps? Or an oversight of the photoshop expert.
Further, A. Gusty's hair is layered as evidenced here:
http://www.ktva.com/ci_6613755?source=most_emailed
aside from the fact that a person with ballet flats would not stand on coiled lighting wires, layered hair just cannot be absent of flyaway hairs in any photo. The right side of her hair is completely Linear, even on the highest resolution and magnification. Not one single stray hair. Impossible. Now, I shall take my tinfoil hat and go to bed. Good night, all.

Anonymous said...

This KTVA account of the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy has an interesting mention about rumours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n7kidMRF2g

Anonymous said...

WOW! Diana December 8, 2008 3:52 PM : I BELIEVE YOU NAILED IT IN THIS PICTURE:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33163903@N05/3094174536/

If it really was on April 18 this year, at the governors convention, SHE DOES NOT SHOW PREGNANT - at least not as pregnant as in the picture at the beginning of Audrey's post!

Just me

Anonymous said...

Craig wrote: "So, its really a no-win situation for her [Palin], even when telling the truth. Think about it."

It's not our fault that Palin goes around telling outrageous whoppers, undermining her own integrity. Think about it.

Anonymous said...

Ok so now I believe the ''nail'' is this photo with ktva in her office and the fact that the airline attendants didn't 'notice'.

couldn't miss that baby bump showing in the picture...especially with all this heightened awareness due to 911 and the fact that they knew who she was.

Alex said...

we had heard the rumors before the delivery of this baby also, that Bristol was pregnant, and so, when my photographer and I got to the hospital and we saw her, I thought, well, clearly there’s no way that that girl just delivered a baby seven hours ago.

from Lori Tipton interview.

Yes, I too, found it strange she would admit that there had been rumors about Palin not really being pregnant and about Bristol being pregnant. (Her comment implies both rumors as she regards Bristol as the possible mother of Trig.)

Curiouser and curiouser.

Has there ever been a political scandal that wasn't preceded by "rumors." Or as my grandmother would have said, "Where there's smoke there's fire."

Anonymous said...

Sorry artful dodger - but McAllister was a senior reporter - NOT a cameraman. Not that it matters. But the cameraman (as IDed by Patrick by another photo he linked to)has no glasses and has nearly white hair around his temples. McAllister does not.

I think these were two photos taken at the same day, in the hallway, after hours, on the date it says. The picture snapper was an observer. His name might be Erik.

In the first, Palin is just looking off in the distance while Gusty is doing her intro. Maybe she is looking at someone else standing in the hallway. Ho hum, she is on camera all the time!

I've stood on wires before. It is the cord to her microphone. Probably gets in the way all the time.

The interesting thing about these photos is that they were posted the day Palin was announced and Palin looks more pregnant here than she does in the Texas photo taken the day she flew home to have the baby.

luna1580 said...

graceR, i don't think you come off as a palinite. just a thinker. did you see i answered your DS breastfeeding question? (it can be very difficult.)

i really dislike many of palin's religious-political views (i don't think she separates them) and many of the things she's done (charging for rape-kits today anyone?) but the only way to keep this investigation from becoming as ridiculous as the obama birth cert. thing is to KEEP it an INVESTIGATION. that means we look for every piece of the puzzle, not only ones in colors we like.

good work to everyone, even "lovely" craig, has kept some people on their toes. (but i still would like to see him address my wild-ride challenge or go away. he's getting repetitive.)

luna

Anonymous said...

Re: searching the KTVA website

This is the search result for the Gusty news story of April 14, 2008, so there was a report filed the day after your photo. (I don't know what the article says, as I didn't buy a copy.)

HEADLINE:

"90-day session wraps with more than 700 bills introduced and less than half voted on"

Author: Andrea Gusty, CBS 11 News Reporter
Article ID: 8925182
Date: April 14, 2008
Publication: KTVA - www.ktva.com (Anchorage, Alaska)

The halls are silent in our state Capitol after a bustling 90-day session wrapped up late Sunday night.


More than 700 bills were introduced and less than half were voted on. Those that did make it are headed to the governor's desk for approval.

The halls that were bustling just Sunday, are now silent. Lawmakers have finished the state's business in 90 days. It was a jam-packed 90 days. All in all, 186 bills passed. Most lawmakers call the session a success, but

Ski-Daddle

moseyon said...

I have never blogged here before
just a lurker.LOL
What i noticed in those 2 photos
is that in the first one with the camera man she dosn't appear to be wareing a cross around her neck,but the next photo it is clearly visable.I don't know if this means anything,or if it has been mentioned before.

Anonymous said...

I keep reading about wardrobe and stylist expenses released by the RNC. I suspect that Palin is being "thrown under the bus." We may not have to worry about her future possibilities.

The real worry is whether the RNC can help the USA get through a very difficult time.

sandra in oregon

Kevin said...

There are a few odd things about the first photo.

(1) The boxes. With the camera on Gusty, the boxes wouldn't show, but with the camera on Palin they would. They're a distraction (even if you're not a conspiracy theorist), and I would think a professional, competent cameraman/reporter team would have set up the interview in another spot, moved the boxes, or maybe the cameraman could have just moved to the left so that both women would be seen against the wall and the boxes would be out of sight.

It looks as though the cameraman set it up to photograph Gusty alone. It would be almost insulting to turn the camera from the reporter to show the governor against a long, presumably empty hall with boxes waiting to be thrown away.

(2) SP doesn't seem to be interacting. She has a "pose-for-the-camera expression looking straight ahead. Compare with the other photo.

(3) Why have a still shot of an interview being videotaped? Because maybe on the videotape SP isn't there?

So it "wasn't photoshopped." Pardon my lawyer-skepticism, but there are other brands of image-manipulating software, if one wants to deceive without really lying.

jeanie said...

Could Sarah be a vampire?

I'm not a photoshop expert, but if you look over the reporter's right shoulder you can clearly see in the picture on the wall two reflections.

Directly above her head there is the reflection of the left side of the photo on the opposite wall (to SP's right) and a bit farther over, coming down to her right shoulder, is another door, which must be on the wall around the corner of the reflected photo on the left. In between is a bit of white.

What seems to be missing here is a reflection of Palin. From the designs on the carpet, she should be right next to that corner.

I blew it up a bit on my Graphic Converter, but my eyes are getting bleary, so I'll leave it to the photoshoppers on the West Coast if it's worth fooling with.

Craig said...

Luna, I'm not sure why I have to accept your challege since I have never said anything about the flight from Texas to Alaska or the relative risk factors involved.

Must be another Craig around here.

But I'll be glad to give you my two cents. First and foremost, Sarah and her doctor are the most familiar with the specific details of this issue and of her medical history. They appear to have been in regular contact. Sarah's contractions had slowed back down to a point where they felt she was not going into labor. It appears that Sarah made the final decision about returning home based upon what her body was telling her and based upon her discussions with the doctor. Her doctor said she didn't feel it was unreasonable for Sarah to fly home.

Now, whether there were ever any conflicting opinions during their discussions and whether the doctor had at least a slight concern, is unknown and is pure speculation to comment on it. My "guess" would be that they both recognised a certain degree of risk, but that it was not enough to be overly worried about. Would every doctor or mother make the same decision? No. People can judge from afar and disagree on this and their opinion may have some reasonable points.

Andrew Sullivan asked some specialists for their opinion and they had some concerns from a very general understanding of the situation. I don't believe any of them stated that it was reckless or dangerous. They did suggest that she should have at least gone to a hospital for testing. And since they had no access to Sarah, or to her medical history, or to the specific details of the events in Texas, these specialists are going to make an especially cautious public assessment.

So, as if anyone should care, but since you asked, I would say there was an element of risk to Sarah's decision to fly home. How much is pure speculation.

But I'm not here to defend or critique all of Palin's personal or professional decisions. I've just been participating in the discussion of whether Trig is her baby.

So there you are, Luna. Not sure why you even cared to hear it, but I aim to please!

Mary G. said...

I'd like to see those pesky boxes in the hallway. I'll bet they say McCain/Palin 2008!

I like the Palin as Vampire theory, too. I thought the reflections totally weird. Even the ones in her eyeglasses in the "with 2 dudes"--sorry, Todd--photo.

And Craig, if Palin had popped a blood vessel while in Texas I bet she would have *willed* the bleeding to stop until she could get to her doctor, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, and to her hospital, Mat-Su Regional. Any determined person can stop bodily functions at will if they really have a speech to give and a plane to catch. And I think I'll just sign myself, Mary-the-truther

Anonymous said...

I purchased the text of the Gusty news article; here it is: KTVA - www.ktva.com (Anchorage, Alaska)
Date: April 14, 2008
Section: News
Article ID: 8925182

90-day session wraps with more than 700 bills introduced and less than half voted on
Author: Andrea Gusty, CBS 11 News Reporter
The halls are silent in our state Capitol after a bustling 90-day session wrapped up late Sunday night.
More than 700 bills were introduced and less than half were voted on. Those that did make it are headed to the governor's desk for approval.
The halls that were bustling just Sunday, are now silent. Lawmakers have finished the state's business in 90 days. It was a jam-packed 90 days. All in all, 186 bills passed. Most lawmakers call the session a success, but they admit they had some disappointments as well.
We saw approval for forward funding for schools, municipal revenue sharing, several crime bills and an effort to save a record five billion dollars.
"We took the task on of working, not on Republican issues or Democratic issues, but on Alaskan issues. And I think that was the key to the success of our group," said Senator Lyman Hoffman (D), Bethel.
"We did some things I didn't like, but we did some good things. And overall, we are going down the road in a good direction," said Representative David Guttenberg (D), Fairbanks.
Along with its successes, the shortened 90-day session had its disappointments for lawmakers: bills that just could make it though because of time constraints.
"We found out this year that there is only time to work on the really big ideas: we worked on savings, education. We worked on the budget. And a lot of little ideas just didn't make it through the system," said the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Senator Hollis French.
Of the 731 bills introduced, only 186 made it through. There wasn't even enough time to get some to a vote, like funding for Denali Kid Care and an energy credit bill for all Alaskans.
"I don't care what anybody else says, chopping 30 days off the session means you get less done," said Representative Mike Doogan (D), Anchorage.
As always, the budgets were hotly debated by lawmakers. In the end, they approved record spending: more than 13.9 billion in the operating and capital budgets. Governor Palin says both are too high.
"This is where the checks and balances come in. If I take some actions that lawmakers are not pleased with, in terms of vetoing, streamlining or creating efficiencies, if lawmakers don't like that, there is always the veto override that can take place," said Governor Sarah Palin (R), Alaska.
With the session now in the books, the next phase of the work begins: deciding to either institute the new bills and laws, or to veto.
Governor Palin now has 20 workdays to veto any piece of legislation, including the budgets. As for lawmakers, they're now looking toward the upcoming gas pipeline special session, which is set to convene in about a month. But they could call themselves right back to Juneau before then and get back to work.
To contact Andrea Gusty, call 907-273-3186.


Photo:

Photo:

Photo:

(c) 2008 KTVA. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of Media NewsGroup, Inc. by NewsBank, Inc.

I tried to click on the photo links but of course they have been pulled:

The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
________________________________________
Please try the following:
• Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
• If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.
• Click the Back button to try another link.
HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found.
Internet Information Services (IIS)


In the picture Sarah looks like a proud mom-to-be—projecting sweetness and accentuating her belly by resting her hands on it. This demeanor is totally inconsistent with the subject matter of the article---the busy legislative session just ended; now the Governor (not the mommy) will review the bills and determine what to veto and what to sign into law.

Not to mention that Gusty twice mentions that the "halls are silent."

Hmmm; more inconsistencies.

L.

Anonymous said...

I also purchased the other KTVA article from April 14, 2008 and, of course, the link to the photo with that story STILL WORKS!!!!

This story looks like a short teaser for a later story:

KTVA - www.ktva.com (Anchorage, Alaska)


Date: April 14, 2008
Section: News
Article ID: 8923080

Wrap-up of events from Juneau

We'll have a wrap-up of the events from Juneau and when we may be expecting a special session, tonight on: CBS 11 News at 5 and 6.




Photo:


(c) 2008 KTVA. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of Media NewsGroup, Inc. by NewsBank, Inc.


(The photo was a shot of the Alaska State Capitol building.)

L.

luna1580 said...

audrey (and morgan), this one's quite long, but i'd appreciate you publishing it.

hi craig,

thanks for taking the time to respond, if not learn anything about mid-forties women birthing preemie DS kids.

i asked you to do this, not because you'd mentioned it before, but because you seem to want to defend palin, and this is an issue where her actions NEED defending.

i wanted to find out if you understand that the palin pregnancy issue is multi-faceted, and reflects upon her just as much if she DID physically bring trig into this world -in the manner she claims- as if she did not.

for the record, this is part of my previous comment on why her travel plans that day from texas to AK matter, with source links:

"people who say "her doctor okayed it, it's fine," (which i find very hard to believe) must not know much about down syndrome.



even if you just dismiss risks of "broken water" infection and other unforeseen delivery risks due to her travel plans, children with DS are often born with heart defects, which may not be diagnosable before birth.



"The overall incidence of congenital heart disease in the general population is 0.8 percent. The incidence of congenital heart disease in children with Down syndrome is up to 50 percent."

cincinnati children's hospital


they may also have developmental disorders of the gastrointestinal tract:



"There is no specific treatment for Down syndrome. A child born with a gastrointestinal blockage may need major surgery immediately after birth. Certain heart defects may also require surgery."
USA national library of medicine & national institute of health



many of these defects require treatment (often surgical) within the first year of life, but some require immediate treatment.

immediate: as in at birth or the baby DIES. a mother CANNOT know in advance of birth if her DS baby will need immediate, life-saving surgery and a neonatal ICU.



ANY woman who thought there was even a chance she was entering labor a month early with a known DS child would get herself physically checked out at a hospital asap. a phone call would not be sufficient (not to mention a competent doctor would never attempt to clear the health and safety of both mother and child without seeing them at this critical time.)



if she was pregnant, SP took a very real risk that her baby, herself, or both would not survive the travel home.



THIS MAKES NO SENSE.



seriously, she was a "rising star" presenter at that texas conference, and if not that, still one of only 50 governors out of 300 million americans. therefore, she would have received preferential treatment at any local hospital.



and probably instant media exposure.



do we really think she should be let off the hook for this child-and-self-endangering behavior
just 'cause the first dude believes "you can't have a fish-picker from texas."??

?

THIS is her own current, public, published story.

thusly, if more people like andrew sullivan point out to/in the MSM that she deserves "negligent-crazy-possibly-suicidal-mother-of-the-year-award" for the wild ride (and doctors agree!) she can only defend herself by admitting the following:



some or all of these statements she made -or confirmed- were LIES:



*her water leaked/ lost plug/ started contractions in texas at all



*she received a go-ahead from her doctor or any doctor



*she actually spoke to any doctor



*she made a reasonable choice to leave texas



*she made a reasonable choice to bypass anchorage hospitals for one with no neonatal ICU



*she knew in advance she carried a DS baby



*she was actually carrying -and thus wildly endangering- said DS baby"

and, craig, this is REALLY what the andrew sullivan blog had to say about it, that it was "reckless beyond measure."

"Actually, the Dish went out and interviewed eight of the leading obstetricians in the country and laid out all the facts of the case and asked the experts for their take. While none would say that this pregnancy could not have happened, and none would comment on a case they hadn't examined personally, all of them said it was one of the strangest and unlikeliest series of events they had ever heard of and found Palin's decision to forgo medical help for more than a day after her water broke and risk the life of her unborn child on a long airplane trip to be reckless beyond measure."
a. sullivan's "8 obstetricians" post

and lastly, so you (maybe) won't term me "a mindless truther" i also previously posted this follow-up about the medical approval of dr. CBJ, palin's regular physician, who is indeed a family practitioner, not any form of neonatal specialist.

"more interestingly, i did find (noting other comments) that dr. CBJ's "palin health letter" states SP had prenatal care:



"including follow-up perinatology evaluations to ensure there were no significant congenital heart disease or other condition of the baby that would preclude delivery at her home community hospital."
PDF of the "health letter"




okay, in keeping with my "direct questions" idea, i've just read many DS, university, and hospital web-pages addressing DS congenital health conditions. 

i can find NO evidence that existing prenatal tests can rule out ALL "common" heart/g.i. tract defects in DS babies pre-birth. most mention diagnostics preformed at birth or shortly after if symptoms appear. it is also often mentioned that DS babies have lungs that develop more slowly than non-DS babies as a matter of fact, which can make a pre-term delivery more risky than for a non-DS baby of the same gestational age. 

i will back down on these particular questions if someone can assure me such tests really exist and are highly reliable."

so, i was asking you if you could absorb all this medical information, understand it, and FIND A RELIABLE MEDICAL SOURCE that would make s. palin's actions in the 24 hours before trig's birth not seem unforgivably RISKY to her self and child.

i asked if you could find it, because i looked, apparently andrew sullivan looked, and we can't find it.

that's all i have to say to you, unless you bring some facts to the table.

always,
luna

Anonymous said...

Some thoughts regarding the picture with three people: The body position of Sarah doesn’ t look life-like with respect to her proximity to the two men:

(1) Would a young cameraman look that “cool” if he were really being photographed standing next to the Governor? He [Dan Carpenter] looks kind of cocky—head tilted and arms bent with hands in his pockets. (That plus his thumbs sticking out of his pockets probably mean something to experts in body language.)

(2)During my pregnancies, I never wanted my pregnant belly to touch others (especially men) whom I was with on a professional basis. I would have turned my belly toward the front, toward the camera—not towards McAllister’s arm, where Sarah’s belly is positioned.

(3) I also think the Governor would have stood in front of the other two men—she’s the boss—she has the most power in the group.

(4) Palin usually smiles crisply for the camera; this is a soft, un-focused gaze like she’s alone in her own world, contrasted with the two men who have crisp smiles directed toward the camera.

L.

Anonymous said...

re denial/depression, plus the "no ongoing meds" line in the medical letter. Wasn't there some problem very early on with who pays for a tanning set-up in SP's home? With all we know about tanning's bad effects on skin, my first thought was that it might be for SAD -- seasonal affective disorder, a form of depression that is said to respond well to a therapy of bright light at regular intervals. Just a thought.

--Amy

Emily said...

Craig, any doctor that would tell a woman who was 8 months pregnant, carrying a KNOWN high-risk child (Downs Syndrome babies can need surgery immediately after birth), on her fifth pregnancy and known for "quick and easy" births (Palin's own assertion, and usually labor is shorter for each additional child you have), to get on TWO flights that were each four hours long, deserves to have their medical license revoked.

I don't care what Palin's personal history is, how she "felt". Cathy Baldwin-Johnson was not present to examine her and confirm that she was not in labor. She at least should have told Sarah to go to the nearest hospital to get checked out to confirm that labor was not imminent before boarding a plane.

This is common, medical, SENSE.

But whatever. We're just truthers here to deny any plausible proof.


I am amused that you continue to dismiss people (like myself) who assert that if they are shown proof (in my case, I will accept a birth certificate, medical records stating Sarah Palin gave birth on 4/18/2008, or a statement by CBJ or another doctor - because I'm not sure we're certain who attended - that they were present and Sarah Palin is the mother...hell, I would even take a picture of Sarah in the hospital bed holding Trig). Instead you continue to state that even if these things were released, we wouldn't accept them and would deny their veracity.

In all probability, the majority of us would accept them, think her reckless with her child's life, and go on with our lives. There would likely be a few who cling to the belief that she's not the mother - but these are the few, not the many.

You keep comparing us to morons who will not accept Obama's birth certificate, despite it being released, the Director of Hawaii's health records (I forget the actual title) stating that what was released was valid and on file, and factcheck.org posting detailed pictures of front and back, asserting that it is a real birth certificate.

Those are truthers - people who will not accept something despite undeniable evidence given.

We have not been given the same quality of evidence. We are given pictures of Palin looking irregularly pregnant, and the statement that Bristol is pregnant, therefore Sarah is the mother.

Not really in the same league.



So, Craig, to sum up:

I will accept that Sarah Palin is the mother when any one of the situations outlined above happens. I will consider it extremely likely she is the mother if Bristol delivers before the end of January.

Until then, I remain skeptical.

But not a truther.

Anonymous said...

PLEASE FOR ALL THAT'S HOLY....try reporting on something you know and understand.
As evidence of your lack of knowledge of the subject, let me clear something up for you.
The second photo, to which you refer is of Governor Sarah Palin with another Anchorage station's (KTUU, NBC)(former)Juneau bureau reporter and his photographer.
The reporter with her is none other than Bill McAllister, who shortly after this picture was taken, took a job as the governor's press secretary.
He has appeared in countless interviews both locally, and nationally.
He should be easily recongized by anyone researching or (especially) reporting on this "story".
While local news orgs were shocked at the announcement of her pregnancy, it was verified.
Both the CBS and NBC affilliates were present at the Mat-Su hospital where Trig was born.
They have footage taken of mother and baby not long after she gave birth.(If it's no longer available on-line, it's because the small market TV stations frequently clear their internet video caches.
(You could probably pay for a copy of the story).
MANY...MANY other stories boith stations did, as well as photographs that appeared in the Anchorage Daily News show Palin "showing."
Perhaps you take a considerable amount of grief for reporting the baseless rumor that Trig is not Governor Palin's baby because you are so obviously wrong and uninformed.
Just a though here, but have you EVER BEEN TO ALASKA?
I doubt it.
-Signed: "Frustrated at the lack of integrity of Internet 'journalism'."
I am certainly not a Palin defender...but ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Anonymous said...

I'm the mother of a 12 year old with Down Syndrome. Grace R asked earlier if children with Down Syndrome can have trouble breastfeeding. In my daughter's case, in spite of requiring a week of neonatal intensive care immediately after being born with congential heart disease, my daughter was able to breastfeed. She would tire easily however, and required extremely frequent breastfeedings. My daughter also never took to bottle feeding. She rejected every type of nipple we tried which frustrated me to no end because it meant I could not leave her at all. She never did take a bottle and learned to drink from a cup at five months.

I have followed Sarah's story ever since she announced Trig's birth since it was HUGE news in the Down Syndrome community. As details of his birth began to unfold, I found Sarah's story increasingly unbelievable.

I say that as a mother of a child with Down Syndrome who is pro-choice, but did not do prenatal testing because I knew that I would not act on the results. I am at a loss to understand how someone prolife could justify having an amnio with its inherent risks.

And I am totally perplexed how someone who knew she was carrying a child with Down Syndrome could take the risks she did on the "wild ride". Even if Sarah did get outrageously bad medical advice, I would have thought that her prenatal research into Down Syndrome would have made it clear that the higher risks of birth complications e.g. 40% chance of congenital heart disease, would make delivery in a facility with neonatal intensive care essential.

Some of my child's friends with Down Syndrome had to have cardiac surgery right after birth. (My daughter was able to wait unti 20 months when the risks were lower). I don't know why you would take a chance with the delivery of your baby if you knew that this could be the case. And certainly the doctor should have known this.

resonance said...

I just saw luna's post and wanted to add to my prior one. I'm the mom with the 12 year old daughter with Down Syndrome.

My daughter was born in a community hospital. She was transferred to a children's hospital that had neonatal intensive care due to concerns regarding her lungs and to monitor her cardiac condition. What kept her in the hospital was her lung development (PDA). She was born 10 days early, not technically premature, but still early.

My point is that there are not only antenatal cardiac concerns, but also lung concerns as well, either of which can require a hospital stay after birth.

-resonance (i decided to get a screen name!)

Anonymous said...

Frustrated wrote: "Just a though here, but have you EVER BEEN TO ALASKA?I doubt it.
-Signed: "Frustrated at the lack of integrity of Internet 'journalism'."I am certainly not a Palin defender...but ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"

Dear Frustrated:
I have been to Alaska. I have even been to Wasilla, and know that it's not exactly the way Palin described it to the lower 48. It's a de facto suburb of Anchorage, not a small town in the middle of nowhere with a white picket fence around it.

If you saw all these photos and videos of Palin pregnant, how about supplying us with some links?
We would LOVE to see them. Please, provide us with all the pictures of Palin pregnant and the news reels at the hospital! We're begging you to help out! Be a citizen journalist yourself and give up the proof you say we lack.

Anonymous said...

zabasearch.com has an entry for a Dan E. Carpenter of Anchorage, born in 1981. Perhaps "erik" is just his middle name.

Anonymous said...

Craig,

OK. We, the grand jury of informed public opinion, having reviewed the evidence available to us through independent research (but without subpeona power), and relying on the statements freely made by Sarah Palin herself, hereby indict Sarah Palin for faking her pregnancy and demand that she be put on trial for perpetrating that lie.

We hereby demand the right to subpeona both witnesses and documents, like any other prosecutor who must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We gladly accept that level of burden of proof provided we have all the resources available to all such parties that are required to produce such a level of proof.

Sarah Palin enjoys all of the rights of other criminal defendents, including, but not limited to,
the right to remain silent;
the right to counsel;
the right to face her accusors; the right to examine the evidence against her;
the right to testify in her own defense;
the right to present evidence in her defense;
the right to cross-examine witnesses;
the right to a speeding and fair trial;
the right to a trial by a jury of her peers.

That's the rules we all agree to live by under the Constitution. I'll accept the burden of proof provided I get the documents and right to subpeona and examine witnesses. I don't have that now, do I. Perhaps if I did I'd gather enough evidence so that I would drop the indictment. But right now, I have enough to indict Sarah Palin for lying, so I'm going to do so unabashedly.

So don't be such a smart guy, Craig, talking about putting the burden of proof on us, unless you're ready to go all the way, because WE ARE.

Dangerous

Anonymous said...

I AM a journalist in Alaska.
As for the proof...get it yourself.
While I will fritter away a few seconds of my time trying (in-vain) to correct your outrageously uninformed opinions: the NATIONAL media was responsible for lableing Wasilla s small towen when Palin was announced as McCain's VP pick. No one in Alaska would consider Wasilla a small town - it was just like when they filmed "Suppernanny" here.
They flew her in on a float plane to the "tiny isolated village of Eagle River."
What they didn't say was she had flown commercial jet to Anchorage (pop. 325k) and could have driven to Eagle River on the state's main highway in 20min.
So, my point is like everything else here, we need some perspective.
Congrats on your Ak trip, btw.
However, as I said, since you are the one making the claims that many of us know to be false, simply call either KTVA or KTUU and ask for a copy of a story run in the time before Palin was picked VP candidate.
You will have to pay for it.
I am not going to get in trouble by posting station vid (for free)to a server so you can screw it up and opine about shadows and missing necklaces.
She was pregnant.
It is her baby.
Why do you think we in the AK media have moved on?
Not because we are shills...but because it is a non-starter, a rumor put forth by the stellar citizen journalists on-line whose only requirement for employment is a website and an opinion.
It is laughable that this is even continuing.
This is my last post.
Enjoy living in Crazytown.
-"Frustrated"

Anonymous said...

BTW...people in the second pick: Dan Carpenter :Former Juneau Photg, KTUU, Ch 2, Anchorage.
To Palin's right is Bill McAllister (former KTUU Bureau Chief, and current Palin Press Sec.)
Why don't you call Bill and ASK him is Palin was Pregnant at the time.
-"frustrated" and gone....

artful_dodger said...

Anon 6:26 PM, there are two kinds of people in this world-- those who question what their eyes see and those who don't. You seem to be in the latter category. But maybe I misjudge you...If so, I apologize. I, however, am one of those people that question everything I see. So bear with me a moment and let's question a few things about these photos, shall we?

First, let us assume that whomever posted these photos thinks that all of the focus will be on Palin. Because that is where they put all of their efforts. She is there, appearing pregnant, in these photos. What he, she or they did not assume, however, was that anyone would focus on the peripheral players. And that is where the best clues may lie.
Second, anon 6:26 PM, Patrick did not id the cameraman in photo 1. He identified the player to Palin's right in photo 2.
Now...no glasses and white temples. Well, I don't know Mr. McAllister at all but 10 minutes of searching showed me several photos and 2 videos of him WITHOUT glasses. So we can deduce that he does not wear them all the time, for whatever reason.
White temples? This is the interesting part.
Look carefully at these two pictures of McAllister from August 2008.
http://ktuu.images.worldnow.com/images/8868302_BG2.jpg
http://ktuu.images.worldnow.com/images/8862557_BG2.jpg
Now compare them with the picture of McAllister in Photo 2.
Notice anything here? If photo 2 was really a picture taken in April 2008, he has not only really grayed in 4 months but he appears quite a bit older, as well. Now it could be rapid aging due to illness or stress or even bad genes but four months? He not only has much more gray around the temples, he appears more wrinkled, much less "robust" , and more jowley, than his picture in photo 2 with Palin.

So what could this mean? In order to deduce we must imagine all possible scenarios and, in doing so, it is certainly possible to be dead wrong. If proven wrong, we move on to other possibilities. But for now, indulge me a little, anon 6:26 PM.

McAllister is appointed as Palin's spokesman in July 08. He has long been known for being very soft on Palin in the past so it is no surprise when she picks him.
In late August, when the Palin pregnancy (or non-pregnancy) rumors really start to heat up, McAllister comes up with a plan. He has the connections, a couple of friends who support Palin and want to see her in high office and the technical know how to accomplish it.
Palin is suited up in a pregnancy belly, positioned on location, lighted, and McAllister hoists a camera. (Yes, he was a reporter but most reporters are quite familiar with the camera aspect of the business!) Mr. Carpenter takes the photo. Ms. Gusty was photoshopped in later, with her permission. Thus, the gray hair is that of the AUGUST McAllister. This photo was made in August.

Photo 2 is another hallway shot of Palin. Again, remember that the person who made this photo assumes that all of the objective focus will be on Palin and not the supporting cast. again, she is looking in another location which makes her appear a bit dazed in comparison to the two gentlemen who are clearly looking at a photographer. No doubt this is Bill McAllister but it appears to be a much younger Bill McAllister. This, I believe, is the reason for the different colored shirt he is wearing. Not just a different day, maybe even a different month or year if an early photo of Bill was inserted into pic 2. Why they staged this photo this way, I really can't say. My guess is that it was just an easy way to make the flickr page look like someone's "personal" page with a "look at me and the Gov" photo.

So does anyone have a photo of a camerman at KTUU that resembles the man holing the camera in Photo 1 so I can put my theory to rest?

Anonymous said...

Comment at 4.49

Usually they upload those reports onto youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg9c_YQxMYk

Above link is a report from Palin's biggest journalist fan, Gusty! Her Facebook confirms this little fact about her....enough said.

Why not upload the video of her in the hospital with baby Trig here if they had aired them? These would have been precious videos, don't you all agree? My thought is that they never existed in the first place.

Anonymous said...

To Dangerous: Sorry, but you're wrong about the burden of proof. An accused person never has to prove they are innocent; it is the other way around.

Obviously Palin's birth story is untrue. But that still doesn't mean Palin is not the biological mother. Preggo or non-preggo pictures are not going to be proof,either, they can easily be doctored and everyone has doubts about the legitimacy of photos on the web. Hospital documents or eye-witness accounts is what is needed.

My two-bits.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 228   Newer› Newest»