Thursday, December 11, 2008

More on Last Night's Photo; PDF Questions

Thanks to the readers who sent in some additional versions of last night's photo. As I think I made pretty clear, I really don't know that much about Photoshop. The brightness/contrast adjustment (with Jen's help) was just about the limit of my "skills."

However, several people - much more knowledgeable than I have sent us new material. As before, the exact instructions for duplicating these results will be given. (Do note that last night's adjustments could be made by anyone who had any sort of photo editing software at all, including many free packages. One of the adjustments shown tonight may be available only to people who have more advanced software, like full versions of Photoshop.)

I will also say that I feel the question about whether adjusting the brightness/contrast/luminosity of photos is "altering" them somehow has been adequately addressed. The comments on last night's post address this issue repeatedly. If anyone still has questions, I would direct them to the thorough and excellent discussion of the question posted by Amy at 1:18 a.m in the comments. I like her analogy very much... it's alot like adjusting the treble or bass on an audio recording. You're not "adding" anything to the music that's already on the CD, that would be impossible. You're just changing what you can hear. I think the question has been adequately addressed here and we will not be approving any more comments that suggest that somehow adjusting the brightness of this photo is exactly the same as adding Joe Blow into a photo with his fishing buddies so we can prove he wasn't home murdering his wife. The contention is ludicrous.

First, this version from R.

To do this yourself in Photoshop: (Don't know about other programs.)

Add Layer
New Adjustment Layer
Change the mode to Luminosity.
On the popup histogram, move the center arrow to the left = 1.++, 1.10 or more

This will enable you to see details without messing with the colors or creating artifacts.

Thanks, R.!


Then this one from B.

Here's how it was achieved from B.'s email:

There’s a tool in Photoshop called shadow/highlight. Open a photo and go to image—adjustments—shadow/highlight. It allows you to open up shadow areas and/or bring detail back into highlights. I use it quite often, but usually subtly. In this case, you want to really open up the shadows. 50% is the default, but you can play with it further.

I think shadow/highlight is only available in the full version of Photoshop. Photoshop Elements, which for most people does more than enough, may not have this tool active.
Thanks, B. I think this version is excellent!

I don't want to beat this horse to death, but I do think this photo is something that can no longer be ignored. This was a photo published in Gov. Palin's home town newspaper! To say that ADN was asleep at the switch on this one is putting it politely. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the techs at the paper, who are assuredly far more experienced at Photoshop than I could ever be, did not do exactly these same adjustments. Last March. And they said nothing.


Over the past few days, numerous people have commented about anomalies they have noticed in the actual physical pdf that was released by the McCain campaign of Cathy Baldwin-Johnson's medical "statement." Although I had commented on some of the oddities of this statement in the past - and intended to return to it in a future post - my points were always dealing with the content of the letter. There are now several posters who have noticed things awry in the actual physical production of the pdf, something I never even considered. Unfortunately, their information is spread out in comments over several days over several posts, and I am having trouble collating it all. Since I have never even considered this question, I am depending on the information that those of you who have looked at the statement have put together.

Could anyone who has looked at this please put together all of your questions/concerns/observations together in email - not comments please - and send it to me at I will look at every email carefully and do a post on this issue soon.

G'night all!


Anonymous said...

I have what is considered an ancient version, 3.0, of Photoshop Elements, but I get beautiful results with my photos. Just go to Enhance (not Image), then Adjust Lighting, and pick either Shadows/Highlights, Brightness/Contrast, or Levels,, and just experiment. Also under Enhance, you'll see Adjust Color and its Color Variations. That's where you can create many subtle adjustments and compare thumbnails of them all on one screen. Elements is up to at least Version 8.0 now, but old-school works just fine too. --FishEye

Anonymous said...

I'm lookin at the video of the hike and at 05:50 and after it sure looks like she's packing something. At 5.57 i can see some 'belly' pretty clearly. I had to pause the video at that point.
At 6.26 I paused because the shot is of her back towards cam. and the fabric of her zipup pulls a lot (was looking for straps for the 'belly')
At 7.00 she's in the office talking and it looks like something is under that zipup, to me.
At 9.48, again

Anonymous said...

Looking at the screen shot of SP's belly slapping from the Frank Elan film on
I really think someone needs to enhance this. I can make out a square lump on (our) left side of her belly. Perhaps enhancement could be done on a few frames so that we could see what this square is...

Anonymous said...

Audrey, you write:

"I find it extremely difficult to believe that the techs at the paper [ADN], who are assuredly far more experienced at Photoshop than I could ever be, did not do exactly these same adjustments. Last March. And they said nothing."

In fairness to the photo geeks at ADN, they had no particular reason to be doing the sorts of manipulations that your readers and you did on that photo. Putting a newspaper out is kind of like working on an assembly line - you have specific tasks to do, and you generally do them with as little extra effort as possible.

On the other hand, I always felt that particular picture was quite damning without the extra adjustments. I suspect the decision not to really push an investigation into the fake pregnancy matter was made at a fairly high level. Thus, even though the ADN reporter Wesley Loy was collecting information on the matter through the spring and summer, he was never given the green light to write up what he had for publication.

So I would not say the photo geeks were "asleep at the switch." They were just doing their jobs. Instead, it might be more fair to say the top editors, for whatever reason, choose not to pursue the investigation - if they had, then the photo geeks would have had a reason to start doing such manipulations.


Anonymous said...

Unless there's one of Palin in a bikini during March/April, I think photos will only further convince the converted. Need sources from hospital to leak info, or a source that can verify Bristol's whereabouts and condition during months in question.

Mary G. said...

Some people are suggesting/ admitting the possibility that Palin adopted Trig through a consensual, family adoption, and that this is a private matter. We would all accept this IF it were stated in an honest manner. But to perform an elaborate charade that includes making her labor equal to the feats of a pregnant super-hero is beyond merely dishonest.
Deeply troubling issues include a rigid ideology regarding parental vs children's rights; conflicting attitudes toward consensual sex; and the boundaries between church, state, and individual. Palin demonstrates that these issues are necessarily obscured, at best.
And her crazy performance of "faking" an on-and-off labor across and above thousands of miles, may have meant that a minor in dire need of medical care had no parents around when she most required them--in the most urgent legal and medical sense. That, I think, is wrong.

~Emma said...

Although the BJ letter bothers me on many levels, like not stating explicity that SP delivered a baby in April, the doctor has allowed the letter stand as her writings.

The letter is only forgery if the doctor claims it to be. If she allows someone to ghostwrite a letter and sign her name to it, the letter is as good as if she wrote it herself.

It is entirely possible that someone else wrote that letter and added an graphic file for a signature. But it makes no difference. By her silence, she has claimed it as hers.

Therefore, looking for font and color changes in the pdf letter are meaningless.

Anonymous said...

It is entirely possible that someone else wrote that letter and added an graphic file for a signature. But it makes no difference. By her silence, she has claimed it as hers.
I totally agree with Emma. The letter has been out there a while now and she would have rebuked the it if it wasn't what she intended. The RNC was managing everything, including, apparently, the state of Alaska. They put this together, but she complied.

Anonymous said...


I disagree that by her silence Cathy B-J has consented to the letter that was issued. If it was a forgery, she commits only a sin of omission by not saying anything. And I am not sure there would be any legal cause of action against her, as she has no duties to anyone *to* say anything.

Wherease, if she comes forward and declares it was a forgery, and the issues are investigated, she might be found liable for any number of crimes-- for example, insurance fraud comes to mind if Trig's bills were submitted on Palin's policy.

Also, Audrey-- you mentioned earlier doing a post about the pussies at Daily Kos who took down yet ANOTHER post on this subject.... is that coming up? I'd love to hear your thoughts.... (and if anyone has a screen shot of what they said, I'd love to read it).


Alex said...

Amen, Mary G. As I have stated earlier, adopting a special needs child is an act that would have garnered praise from all factions. (except, I guess, from those of us who believe she exploits her children as media props.) The charade is at best bizarre, and at the worst, as troubling, even dangerous, as any financial or sexual deception perpetrated by any politician in my 58 year old memory. It signifies delusional, grandiose behavior on par with the world's most heinous global tyrants.


When I ponder all of the work of Audrey and others here, the photo I always come back to is the loving family group of Levi, Bristol, and Trig which I just saw again on P/K's Flickr site. I know I'm not supposed to discuss Bristol, but that photo is as powerful a piece of evidence (for me as a mom and as a woman) as any adjusted image of a non-pregnant Palin. And when I try to imagine some other scenario (Track raping someone or the sister having her tenth child) I go back to the photo of those three. There is more clear emotion in that photo than ANY any photo I've ever seen of Governor Palin and/or her husband.

Anonymous said...

To Alex's post and to the many others here and elsewhere who have commented on "the photo" of the happy teenage couple holding and kissing her "baby brother." It IS shocking and there certainly isn't much out there of Mr. and Mrs. T Palin doing the same. However, I also see it as a very immature pair of teenagers "play acting" at being parents. They knew the cameras were on them. We all know about his My Space page. He stood on stage chewing gum. The RNC bought him the only suit he's probably owned in his entire life, got his hair cut and put him on his first airplane most likely. So, what a heady trip that was. Then, to further act the big man, he kisses a baby. Ewwwww. I don't think he would have that much affection for his own kid. I think they were both acting. Much like B. up on stage waving like Queen Elizabeth. Then again, having said all this one of the most flagrant and outstanding, if you will, elements to this story is how ginormous her boobs looked bound up in that sausage-casing of a dress. THose were nursing boobs, not 5-months pregnant boobs in my opinion. And so this is how I stay on that maddening "ya but", "but then again" cycle of facts and fiction in this story. L.A. in S.F.

Alex said...

One more thing, and then I'll leave it for today. I am a woman. A middle-aged well-educated well-traveled woman on her 2nd marriage to a much younger man, with two grown children. I'm also a published playwright. I've read (and written extensively) about women's issues. In my opinion, the MM's avoidance of this issue (as opposed to a man's sexual dalliances) and the Daily Kos's refusal to follow it-- don't surprise me at all. BECAUSE it is a deeply Feminine issue. Child birth is as deeply feminine an issue as you can go-- and I can testify as a woman playwright, that even today, plays about women's issues can only go so far. Men still rule the stage. And if men don't rule business and politics, masculine behavior does. For this reason, exposing these lies is far more difficult than exposing masculine behavior. In many ways, childbirth is a taboo subject, which is why I believe Palin has been able to get away with this. It's one thing for loving husbands to write in here talking of their wives' pregnancies, but it's a wholly other subject for a newspaper to address it. I say this as a playwright, who KNOWS that childbirth isn't even a topic you'll find in a Broadway play.

AND if it is also for this reason, that I abhor this coverup, for it villifies and mocks the very life process that we hold so dear.

Anonymous said...

I just used Picasa to lighten up the frame from the Elan video at Don't have an account to post this to, but you can do it with any similar software. Palin's "pregnant belly" turns very light compared to her dress, as if there is a white undergarment. I don't recall my wife wearing anything that fit quite like that, when she was pregnant. It looks just like a fake pregnancy pad. It's stunning.

Anonymous said...

I'm lookin at the video of the hike and at 05:50 and after it sure looks like she's packing something. At 5.57 i can see some 'belly' pretty clearly. I had to pause the video at that point.
At 6.26 I paused because the shot is of her back towards cam. and the fabric of her zipup pulls a lot (was looking for straps for the 'belly')
At 7.00 she's in the office talking and it looks like something is under that zipup, to me.
At 9.48, again

That is a baggy jacket, not a belly. And, as previously commented on by everyone here ad nauseum, the lack of belly combined with her supposed stage of pregnancy, the walking on snow and ice with heels, walking fast without getting out of breath, all those things combined together make it more probably than not she is not pregnant.

Mary G. said...

And thank you,to you Alex, for your posts and for all the information shared on this blog about photoshop, medicine, the law, etc.
It is true about childbirth and the myths surrounding it (sometimes I think modern medicine has just created new ones). It really bothers me that Bristol or the birth mother of Trig may have been hidden somewhere recovering from birth while Palin got to be propped up on pillows recovering from--jet lag? Awful. Duplicitous. Grrrrr. Mary g.

Alex said...

Anon 8:50-- you may be right about the Bristol, Levi photo and I'm a sentimental fool. However, I have a 23 yr old son, and I know it is impossible to make him do anything, even pose for a photo he doesn't want to do. I guess I just believe that was a candid shot, snapped while so much else was happening. And that what it shows to me is something that cannot be arranged or posed. But then again, I'm as much sentimental sucker as I am hardnosed cynic.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Mary G. for your 5:41 am comment.

Sarah Palin’s conduct is the issue; she is a government official, and as such, she is responsible to the public for her actions. She has made many, many public statements that are not true.

I believe that citizens must demand honesty and integrity from our elected leaders. I couldn’t, in good conscience, just let her “whoppers” go. (Especially the whoppers about motherhood, childbirth, and taking care of a baby.) Openness, accountability, citizen access and citizen participation are fundamental to democracies. So I have been actively participating in the efforts of this blog.

However, if this story evolves to the point where, instead of proving Sarah didn’t give birth to Trig, people instead try to prove who did, I hope that we are ready to responsibly redirect the focus where it belongs—on the integrity of a government official.

It’s a difficult balancing act— showing compassion to Palin family members while at the same time demanding integrity, openness and accountability from Governor Palin. Based upon the tenor of the majority of comments on this blog, I think we’re up to that challenge.


Anonymous said...

Alex, your last comment is very meaningful to me. Thank you.

--Amy the first.

KaJo said...

A few days ago I looked at the video of "the hike" at , but after Anonymous' comments @ December 11, 2008 10:52 PM, I decided to look at the video in more detail (be patient, it's a LOT of detail):

4:27 clear view -- just starting out on the walk, looks about the same as her belly does in the 3/26/08 picture.
5:20 clear view -- still the same
5:32-33-34 back view -- that jacket hem is swinging pretty freely in back, no tight fit at all across the back, only a flex wrinkle at the waist as her hips move from side to side.
5:52-53-54 -- first clear view from the front during the walk -- still seems to be a straight-down loose fit to that jacket.
5:56 -- she's actually leaning a bit forward, and that jacket front sure looks straight down to me -- notice the zipper, no 'pooching' outward at all. Just the normal appearance of a zipper going over bosom, a waist area with pockets that look like they might have her gloves in them, and a loose-fitting jacket hem.
5:57 -- indeed, the jacket zipper bows a bit in this frame, but her right hip is cocked back and out a bit, and I noticed her stride is long, which would change the drape of the jacket.
6:09 -- there actually does seem to be something in that right jacket pocket.
6:15 -- looks like a pretty normal non-pregnant frontal view to me!
6:26 -- As SP reached up to catch the door, there really DOES appear to be something about 6" top-to-bottom between her waist, up to shoulder-blade level, like a heavy pad or something. I wonder if that corresponds to the pad in front observed in the 3/26/08 picture discussed by Anonymous @ 3:30 AM today? In the previous frame her right pocket is still 'pooching' out a bit -- my guess is a glove (and/or hanky) in the pocket.
6:28 -- the apparent 6"-high pad appears to be on either side of her backbone, not completely covering the back. The wrinkles in her jacket stop abruptly at the point where that pad starts, on the right side of her back. Move up another frame, and as she turns to go in the door, you can see both margins of the pad, on either side of her backbone.

Consolidating my conclusion with this further observation:

Anonymous said @ December 12, 2008 3:30 AM
Looking at the screen shot of SP's belly slapping from the Frank Elan film on
I really think someone needs to enhance this. I can make out a square lump on (our) left side of her belly. Perhaps enhancement could be done on a few frames so that we could see what this square is..."

I noticed that yesterday, too, Anon. (didn't comment on it -- yet). I thought it looked like a large Steri-Pad, or one of those large stick-on "Icy-Hot XL Back Patches (5-1/2"x9-3/4"), either of them to "remind" her that she's "pregnant", to ACT pregnant!

Anonymous said...

Okay, I'm DONE...finally.

I'm 100% convinced after looking at Anonymous 3:30am's elan video post.

I downloaded the photo and opened it using Photoshop and the shadow/highlight tool.

Someone please do the same and send a copy to MSM and SP. Let them know it's over and she should lose her job for such a disgusting charade on the world.

Moral Turpitude.

Please get those emails with Todd's name cc'd and I'm sure this be invincible.

And to all of you that ''go along'' just because you support her or her party: You do a great disservice to yourselves and are a danger to the world. Honestly, flogging is in order, here.

palin said...

I know that these are most likely a joke, but they look pretty realistic and comprehensive. Who would release something like this?

NJESQ said...

I have posted here before anonymously, emphasizing the importance of the different color print on the characters at the end of the letter allegedly signed by Dr. Johnson.

This continues to be the most important evidence, because there apparently is no explanation for how the color of those two characters could be different than the color of all the other typed text, but the same as the color of the signature. Since the signature and those two characters are of the same color, the signature was obviously pasted and colorized, and the colorization accidentally or, because of technological limitations, extended to those two characters as well.

Unlike other evidence, such as photographs which have been legitimately examined via Photoshop, the crookedness/sloppiness of Dr. Johnson's letter in other regards, or the whereabouts of Bristol Palin, that piece of evidence stands (to date) as unrebutted and irrefutable. (I do not doubt the probative value of all the other evidence; however, a person could explain that other evidence away with rational, albeit unreasonable, explanations.) With regard to the change in color, no rational explanation exists.

I am a trial attorney. I know from experience that sometimes the most compelling evidence is the evidence that cannot be explained away, even if it is not as dramatic as other important evidence, such as the photographs analyzed on this blog and site (which are strong but, as noted here, capable of being (unreasonably, but rationally) explained away). Think of the classic Sherlock Holmes story about the dog that didn't bark.

Without a rational explanation, the letter must be deemed a forgery and a fraud. The letter was sent by Sarah Palin. She committed the fraud and engaged in the forgery. Why? To lie. About what? Obviously, to lie about the one issue in contention: Her maternity, or lack thereof, with regard to Trig Palin.

Main Stream Media, where are you? What a great story for the ages, right under your collective noses. A high-profile government official engaged in acts of fraud and forgery. No need to malign a child or drag anyone else into the issue--just deal with the forgery and fraudulent letter. Dan Rather and CBS rightfully had their figurative heads handed to them for relying on a forged document (which they did not even forge themselves). Here, Sarah Palin forged the document and relied upon it to dupe the media and the public. Where is the outrage? Where is the backbone necessary to shine a very public light on this event?

Once the Main Stream Media pulls on this loose thread, the entire fraud will unravel.

Anonymous said...

Alex--very insightful 8:55 AM comment. Yes, this is a deeply feminine matter. Alot of people are not able to see the absolute BS of the Wild Ride from Texas, the breast pump at night, and other pregnancy/childbirth anomalies. However, it hits mothers in our heart and soul.

You said "I abhor this coverup, for it villifies and mocks the very life process that we hold so dear." The pregnancy/childbirth issue is the one that snagged me and spurred me to action for just that reason.

Yes, there are plenty of other lies, coverups, and staggering issues that need to be investigated. But this is the one that grabbed me and wouldn't let go.

Does anyone know a female MSM journalist or media executive who is not afraid to take some flak and who will pick up this story? Someone who bridges the sensibilities expressed on this blog with journalism chops? Maybe Andrew Sullivan can help.


Anonymous said...

Emma 7:20 am

Back on the doctor's letter/pdf questions.

I agree with Emma (7:20 a.m.) and others after her: If the doctor approves of the content of the medical summary that went out above her signature, then none of its physical oddities matter.

This document was released at the last minute, presumably with input and review from people scattered across the country. No surprise if it looks a little kluged together physically. As an attorney, I don't find that suspicious. A lot of tough negotiations on tight deadlines don't get resolved until after the support staff goes home.

The doctor must know about the letter's contents, as we all do, and she has not challenged it. That's not as strong as her publicly affirming it. But let's keep a sense of proportion here, as physical analysis continues. Messiness, such as an electronic signature, by itself isn't sinister.


Anonymous said...

Thanks to the attorneys weighing in here. Much appreciated.

A couple of comments--the story has absolutely been too feminine--make that too female--for the MSM. Wolf Blitzer is not going to ask Palin anything at all about leaks from her vagina. "Water breaking" is an allowed euphemism. Nothing more can be said. The fact that her story of flying to Alaska makes no sense is apparent to a lot of us married men with children. But there's no easy way to discuss it in public. My 26 year old married but childless son doesn't get it. And I'm actually not even real comfortable explaining it to him! I know that sounds silly, but there it is.

Second point, this phony pregnancy is part of a lot of "who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" that has been various politicians' stock in trade for a while--I think more or on the right because I'm a lefty myself, but you don't have to see it that way--and I'm just completely fed up with it.


Anonymous said...

I finally saw the square you are talking about in the Elan video. I used curves in photoshop to highlight it.

Anonymous said...

L @ 9:30

I agree with your statement. I have been following this blog for quite some time now and have been guilty myself of speculating. I guess it is human nature to question why someone would go to such an extreme. Especially in this day and age when so many grandmothers like myself have been similarly situated.

The pictures speak for themselves. Taking a picture and changing the contrast or brightest to improve clarity does not change the intrigity of the picture.

If it was a neighbor down the street, I would consider it none of my business. But, because Palin campaigned for my vote to help put her in our country's second highest office, I do want and expect an answer...why?!

Anonymous said...

I again feel very appreciative of those who are adding substance to this blog conversation, so that we can all collectively "move the ball." The analysis of the Elan Frank video -- which I was aware includes several bizarre screen shots -- and the legal commentary on the doctor's letter are very informative. Thank you.

I want to say again, to those who suggest that Dr. B-J's silence implies her affirmation of the letter, that it certainly does not do so. I strongly suspect that the doctor has been advised by counsel to say nothing in this matter. To my knowledge, no one has even asked her whether she knows the letter exists and whether it is a truthful statement in its implication (but not statement) that SP is Trig's biological mother, a statement that she wrote, read, endorsed and/or signed. The failure to ask this fundamental question is a blot on the integrity of the MSM. How pitiful they are sometimes! (Even if she refused to comment or answer, it would be newsworthy.)

We cannot say with any certainty what her real role in the pregnancy and birth were, due to the hearsay aspect of the single newspaper quote and the unsubstantiated validity of the letter.

Also, we do know that SP was in Juneau from January through April, so it seems that (if she had actually received pre-natal care) SP did not receive all her care from CBJ and thus CBJ could not personally testify to all aspects of the pre-natal care.

Anonymous said...

Bottom line here is that Palin could have not been pregnant and given birth the way she has retold it. Whether the women on this blog have had one baby or 11 babies, we have all said the same thing...SP's pregnancy, birth, nonexistent post partum period, and amazing post pregnancy weight loss all defies nature. Is she the Virgin Mary or something? Was Trig delivered by Santa Claus? I mean Alaska is close to the North Pole. That makes more sense than the story SP has told.

Bristol's disappearance from the campaign trail and post campaign interviews speak volumes about how SP feels toward her daughter's pregnancy. As a previous commenter said the pic of Levi, Bristol, and Trig at the RNC said it all. That is a family. I have never seen Sarah look at Trig in that way. If she embraced her daughter's current pregnancy, she would have no problem with her being interviewed or photographed the way the other kids were.

Bristol is due in 6 days and counting...

FW from VA

Anonymous said...

Is that square on her belly in the Elan Frank video the same one that appears on the Nail in the Coffin picture? Could be part of the fake belly binding, but now she has filled in the binding with padding....

KaJo said...

Going off on a bit of a tangent: There's an interesting blog called Feminist Philosophers at

They posted an entry Dec 3rd -- -- that describes the goal of Andrea O'Reilly (founder and director of the York Association for Research on Mothering, York University, Toronto, Canada) "to inaugurate a timely, interdisciplinary, theoretical and critical discussion of the Palin phenomenon as an iconic representation of public motherhood."

She and co-editor Deirdre Condit of VA Commonwealth University are calling for "a public conversation" to be called "An Edited Collection by Demeter Press -- The Palin Factor: Political Mothers and Public Motherhood in the 21st Century".

Anyone with a writer's bend and something to say feel motivated to submit a "250 word abstract and 50 word bio February 1, 2009"?

see also
for the original York U. article Nov 25th.

Anonymous said...

Thank you NJESQ. I posted on another thread about the lack of organization to the letter and why I didn't think a medical doctor would have written it. It fits perfectly with something that SP would write. So much the way she would talk and the emphases that seem to address the pregnancy rather than the health of the candidate.

I am so sorry she felt she had to do this.

sandra in oregon

tim said...

Reply to NJESQ

Unfortunately, the signature color match to the "FP" in "FAAFP" is not conclusive.

I am a graphics professional so hear me out.

The signature could have been done in a non-black ink and the "FP" type color could have been changed in the word processing application to a non-black as well. It is fairly common for a logo or acronym to have different colors, especially one with a bunch of letters such as "FAAFP". The page output would then have at least two colors if output in color, or grayscale if output in black.

Also, page 2 could have been scanned in black & white or grayscale (either intentionally or accidentally) instead of color. The resulting scan could then have an appearance where you have characters (and signature) that are grayscale and look different than the "normal" black characters on the rest of the page. In other words, some letters look black and others look gray.

While we're at it, I'll mention Page 1 - pretty basic stuff. It's a color scan of a preprinted two-color letterhead shell with two PMS colors plus one color (black) from the printer.
In this case, the letterhead shells were used to replace blank paper in either an inkjet or laser printer to produce a letter with three colors - black for the body copy. This would explain why the body copy on page 1 is "crooked" compared to the preprinted logo and address block. The logo and address block parts are lined up which each other - they both go slightly downhill - which indicates they were preprinted for this letter.

Anonymous said...

Will someone PLEASE post the Elan screen shot with the "square" somewhere so I can see it? I can't figure out how to do it.

Another thing about the Elan video--when SP drums on her belly. I have had 2 kids and never have I drummed on my belly like that. I can't recall ever seeing anyone else do that either. Belly pats/rubs are one thing but drumming like that? Just struck me as a bit odd.

Anonymous said...

KaJo, thanks for the posting the call for academic papers analyzing aspects of Palin's 21st century archetypal impact related to motherhood and governance. That's one of the most frightening things I've ever seen in academe.

Knowing how long it takes to get academic books published, I can't help but wonder if that collection of essays about Palin won't be irrelevant by the time it comes out.

But hey now: no more talk of why does any of this matter, eh? Because now we can just point those people towards this call for papers! :-)

Anonymous said...

I have taken new screenshots of Sarah Palin on 17 April 2008 at the RGA in Texas - one day before the birth of Trig.

The original video can be found here:

I discovered that after I had downloaded the video (using "Replay Media Catcher" - love this program) I was able to watch the video in a much better quality than on the CBS website.

Here are two screenshots of the people on the podium with SP on the left:

Here are two zooms into these screenshots:

And here are two very clear screenshots of her face on 17 April 2008:

In these screenshots, it becomes obvious how flat the "magic scarf" falls down on her belly.


Anonymous said...

Thanks so much for this blog. I am one of those people who have never bought the story that Sarah is Trig's mother. There are just too many strange factors at play:

1. Bristol being out of school for mono (which at its worst can keep someone down for 3-4 weeks)

2. The removal of and absence of photos of Sarah or Bristol from December 2008 - April 2008.

3. The one photo with the TV crew that mysteriously appeared as evidence that Sarah was pregnant. It looks very staged to me.

4. A photo of Gov. Palin at the Governors conference in Texas doesn't show her as being very pregnant and she supposedly went into labor then?

5. Gov. Palin returned to work the day after giving birth?

6. No birth records for Trig in the hospital on the day he was supposedly born?

7. Nobody (even the flight attendants on the flight Gov. Palin took back to Anchorage from Texas) thought that she looked pregnant.

I did an image search for photos of Gov. Palin published anywhere from November-May 2008 but had very little luck finding anything. It seems very odd that there are no photos of a State Governor over such a long period.

When is Bristol due date? Shouldn't it be soon?

I'll keep an eye on your blog.

Thanks again

Anonymous said...

Yellowgirl writes: " ... you mentioned earlier doing a post about the pussies at Daily Kos ..."

Pussies? How delightfully retro!

Anonymous said...

O.K. I must speak up.

If Palin is hiding a baby under her cloths even in the pictures on 4/17 one day before birth, I agree she must have carried that baby in her pocket like one reporter suggested.

I have two kids. On my first pregnancy, I only gained 24 lbs and my daughter was born at 35 weeks (5 weeks early) and weighed 4 lbs 10 ounces. I am 5'3.5". My normal weight was 120 lbs.

My second pregnancy I gained 55 lbs and I had my son at 39 weeks so he was full term. He weighed 7 lbs 5 ounces.

I was very fit and had an extremely flat stomach before pregnancy but even in my first pregnancy, I was already showing at 25 weeks and my second pregnancy as early as 19 weeks. By the time I was 33 weeks in my first pregnancy I was HUGE!. And keep in mind, I was 29 when I had my first child and 32 when I had my second not 44 years old having a 5th child.

Palin is definitely lying about being pregnant. She did not carry a baby in that flat belly of hers.

Keep searching for the truth, Audrey. It is out there somewhere.

KaJo said...

Anonymous @ 1:45 PM,

I'm hoping one or more of us here (or other linked blogs) want to provide the CRITICAL aspect of the discussion of "the Palin phenomenon as an iconic representation of public motherhood."

Maybe I'm being naive, but I got the feeling from reading the original article at the York U. site that they expect both pro and con contributions. I didn't feel the effort will be another neocon effort to whitewash Palin (not one from Canada, anyway!).

Excerpt: Is Palin a champion of women or an embarrassment? Did she further the cause or set it back? Her nomination initiated a public conversation about the meaning and depiction of Palin and her role as a publicly elected, working hockey mom... Despite her active embrace of her hockey mom image, Palin’s public motherhood remains enigmatic.

Anonymous said...

Talking about squares. From the moment Bristol appeared on stage at the convention, I thought that her belly look very fake, like there was a pillow under her dress.

Anonymous said...

Offtopic Message for Alex (whom we like a lot!)

Patrick has granted your request and the flickr photos have now been reorganised into albums. Thank you ever so much for your suggestion.

Kathleen and Patrick

Anonymous said...

"What in God’s name does a child with Down’s syndrome have to do with being VP?"

In 2002, when she was running for lieutenant governor, “Palin sent an e-mail to the anti-abortion Alaska Right to Life Board saying she was as ‘pro-life as any candidate can be’ and has ‘adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion.’”

Almost 200 families are on a waiting list to adopt a child with Down syndrome in the United States. Many of those interested in adoption have a child with the genetic condition; some are special-education teachers or motivated by religious beliefs or idealism.

-- or political activism?

Ed Wassell, president of Alaska Right to Life, told the Anchorage Daily News that, despite Palin's official pro-life words and deeds as governor, her decision to keep her disabled baby tops them all.

That decision "speaks more eloquently than any words or any official actions," Wassell says. "From that perspective, I think she's unmatched."

Anonymous said...

Just enhanced the belly slapping photo. Definitely a cushion device. It is much wider at the bottom than the top and squares off at the corners.

One day the truth will be told.

KaJo said...


Nice pickup on finding that CBS video. I examined the video directly, and made screenshots myself at the times noted below.

Palin looks very VERY sleepy (0:39) standing there with the other Republican Governors. But maybe a bit smug, in the closeup (that's just me).

However, she looks like she's in full "pregnancy suit" regalia.

At frame/time 0:32 her tummy looks "normal", but then she raises her hand to readjust her glasses, then brings both hands down to encircle her tummy, and you can see that she's quite rounded (0:34 - 0:48).

The doctor, Ralph Anderson, M.D., local ACOG Director, is the only man I've seen clearly say the words "dilatation" and "cervix" on camera! (lol)

Anonymous said...

FW from VA said:

"Was Trig delivered by Santa Claus? I mean Alaska is close to the North Pole. That makes more sense than the story SP has told."

Thanks for the seasonal smile!

- jwc

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 2:54 writes: "Nobody (even the flight attendants on the flight Gov. Palin took back to Anchorage from Texas) thought that she looked pregnant."

Not what the attendants said.

They said Palin's STAGE of pregnancy wasn't obvious, no signs of distress -- that is, she didn't look like an 8 month pregnant women with leaking fluid a few hours away from popping out a 6 pound baby. So Palin's story seems wrong.

Had a flight attendant really said that Palin didn't look pregnant at all, then since the flights were just a few hours between her looking pregnant in TX and delivering a 6 lb. infant in AK, that would have been game over for Palin. -B.

Husky said...

Now more than ever I'm convinced that the truth of these deceptions will come out. It isn't a matter of if, but when.

If you go along with the thought that eventually someone will come forward, or the msn will devote some effort, or the doctor will recant, then wouldn't common decency demand that the truth should come sooner rather than later.

I'm not talking about the need for accountability from public officials (though that's important)- I'm talking about Trig's future. If someone other than SP is his biological mother and Sarah and Todd have decided to adopt him, at what point do TRIG'S best interests come into play? Keeping the truth of his birth from him for his whole life may be the way they were going to play it, and in fact is a scenario likely played out over and over around the world through the ages.....HOWEVER.......How on earth do you think it's ok to accept a vp nomination if this is the case?

I know, it's all speculation. But that could all have been avoided with the simple production of a birth certificate....OR with a confession of the truth which might spare a, say, ten year old TRIG from some confusing revelations.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 2:54 PM:

I have to disagree with your #1 statement (even though I think Audrey has established that she can't find where the mono rumor started and no one will verify it)

My best friend had mono and became very sick, even dropping out of class for the semester and was too weak to even leave bed/the couch for long for about 3 weeks... and after that could only make short trips walking/someone else driving for the next 3 months. So, if this rumor was true is IS possible for her to have some bad case of mono and be out of school for months. Except, that so far, its just a rumor.

Anonymous said...

Well, those close-ups of her face from April 17 definitely look DIFFERENT than the two posed pics where she 'seems to be' highly pregnant! You clearly can see that if you compare them side-by-side. On April 17, she has a VERY NON-PREGNANT face, whereas the other two have been altered to make her look pregnant.

Anonymous said...

It's not pure speculation anymore, thanks to the good sleuthing that has gone on, especially over the past few weeks. Now there is some very persuasive evidence to address some of the gaps in SP's story. Good teamwork!

Vinnie said...

Audrey, this is a very well done site. This is indeed an important issue so please continue to ignore all of those people that tell you to ignore this. There's a reason many people are interested in putting you down for this.

I think this photo is the one of the most telling. It's RIGHT before her pregnancy and her face shows no signs of weight gain. I lost about 12 pounds and it was surprising how much it showed in my face alone. There's no way she put on all of her baby weight while her face looked like that.

Or maybe I'm just a guy who doesn't know the details about weight gain and pregnancy. :)

Vinnie said...

Well, maybe that photo isn't as definitive as I'd thought. After Googling I did find a few women with very large bellies at 38-40 weeks whose face showed little sign of weight gain. But the norm was to show quite a bit of weight gain in the face.

Obviously, it's different for all women. Looking at Sarah's face in the photo of her previous pregnancy does tell us a lot.

Quincy said...

Here is a link to the Juneau Empire video of Palin on April 8 that I mentioned:
It is another scarf/black blazer ensemble on the governor but, again, she appears less pregnant,(less full-faced), than in the Andrea Gusty picture.

KaJo said...

I was looking through Kathleen & Patrick's re-organized collection of Palin pix in their flickr album, and came upon the "Whole Truth" pictures from 08 Feb 26. Sarah Palin has a one-on-one conversation with a guy in a brown logo t-shirt and brown duck trousers (Carhartts?)

I got a laugh, seeing what the guy was wearing around his waist.

I'll bet that's where Palin got the idea for that belly belt we can see in the "nail in the coffin" picture.


I've also done some lightening and brightening of some of the other pictures in the album, but the most notable is Palin with Janet Napolitano 08 Mar 3.

It's clearer after the lightening that Palin is wearing black pantihose and high-heeled boots as well as crossing her legs.

Now, at my present weight (I'm a short dumpy senior citizen ;) ) I avoid getting into pantihose at all costs. And I NEVER wear high heels any more. Crossing my legs, forget it!

Has to be equally difficult-to-impossible for an 7-month pregnant woman, right? Palin, however, looks quite comfortable.

luna1580 said...

anyone who's been wondering what those flight attendants did or didn't say and what palin's version of her birth story is, here is the anchorage daily news article many of the related quotes seem to have come from.

this is how she played off the wild ride, at the time.

it's still crazy risky for a downs preemie with possibly underdeveloped lungs, heart defects, g.i. defects, etc., but there it is.

i stand by my previous comment:

there are only two reasons she wouldn't have been "checked-out" by a doctor in texas once she started "leaking":

*she thought having the baby born in alaska was more important than her own or the baby's health, and knew any doctor who actually examined her wouldn't let her fly (meaning she lives in crazy town!)

*she wasn't pregnant.


Anonymous said...

Does anyone know whatever happened to this promised bombshell? I suppose it was just hearsay?

( from ):

This is cut and pasted from VF. I'm new and don't know how to add to the "waterbreak" blog...

Report abuse
There are all kinds of suspicious facts and photos, but 'true believer' Republemmings will not believe a word of it till Sarah actually confesses on TV. That is why there is an organization with very deep pockets working on this story in Alaska, and will break the real story in mid-October (too late to get another VP). I heard the key was a large payment to a nurse at Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, who was very worried about her safety. They are going to nail Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson for insurance fraud and some other stuff (medical ethics, faking documents... I got this over the phone, I'm not up on medical crimes). Turns out the Down's Syndrome was just a Red Herring, part of the cover-up that makes a 44 year old mother plausible. It's really Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Bristol got wasted a few times in July and August before she knew she was pregnant. That's why they couldn't quietly give the baby up for adoption, and why Sarah got a late start on faking the pregnancy. I heard they are going after the Doctor that gave the fake 'mono' diagnosis as well. So many crimes, so little time. Bristol's current 'about 5 months pregnant' is just afterbirth weight, and she is breastfeeding. Such a sick kid (Trig) really needs his mother's milk, no way would they force her to bottle feed only after all they put her through. Yeah, there is a 'miscarriage' coming. After the Presidential Election. And no, Sarah did not have a 'pillow' under her blouse for those famous TV interview photos. She splurged the $500 :"> If Sarah wins VP, most likely. If not, he keeps the Hummer and goes his redneck way.

Posted 9/9/2008 by JessicaMG

Anonymous said...

Why do alaskans want to be represented by this lying govenor? How sad that no one wants to come forward with the truth...

Anonymous said...

While I certainly don't think Palin was pregnant in these photos, I need to clarify two things:
1. Unless there have been medical advances of which I am unaware, fetal alcohol syndrome is not diagnosable till after an affected child is born.
2. Secondary infections and complications following mononucleosis can debilitate a person for months, even a young and healthy person. I have both seen and experienced this.
It is very important to stick to what is provable if one wants to be credible. Audrey, you do well.

Anonymous said...

I was reading an article on the NYTimes site this a.m., reporting on the collapse of the Madoff investment scheme, and found this apropos quote. The man speaking was one of a few investment experts who did not buy the Madoff scheme, some of whom tried to sound warnings about it. Unfortunately, those warnings were not followed up with investigative oversight, and now we know that many investors have lost many billions.

I suspect that (sooner rather than later) the same thing will happen with Sarah's scheme, and someone will be interviewing Audrey, and she'll say the same thing about Sarah that a Mr. Fludgate did about the Madoff scandal: “There were no smoking guns, but too many things that didn’t add up.”

Too bad the MSM doesn't pick up on these warnings and investigate them thoroughly; but thank God a majority of voters didn't buy the Sarah scheme. Otherwise we'd be in even worse trouble than Madoff's investors.

Anonymous said...

Hi KaJo,

thanks a lot for the nice comments about my flickr-stream. I think with the re-organisation it's much easier to view and compare. I think it's very important to have a comprehensive collection like this.


NJESQ said...

Further to the issue regarding the authenticity of the letter from Dr. Johnson:

I read a response to my post regarding this issue, calling into question whether the letter is a forgery. I could not understand from the text of the letter whether the writer was saying it was "possible" the changed color of the "FP" at the end of the letter was innocent, or "likely," or something else. I also could not understand if the writer was saying the remainder of the physical aspects of the letter he/she discussed tended to prove or disprove the concept of a forgery. ... Are there any people more technically skilled than I am who can respond to that point?

I also noted the comment about Dr. Johnson's failure to make a public comment regarding the letter, and that the media has either not inquired of her or she has rebuffed them.

I also noted the comment that the letter could have been compiled "by committe," so to speak.

A vital question regarding any such evidence of course is this: Where is the original? Did Palin send it to anyone, or was there merely an internet transmission?

Again, as in the CBS/Dan Rather fiasco, the ORIGINAL of that letter must be requested by the media. Failure to do so would constitute, in my opinion, journalistic malpractice, if such a concept existed.

I have not (yet) attempted to speak with someone within the MSM regarding this evidence issue. Has anyone else? If so, can you share what the response was from your media source?

Much thanks,

Windy City Woman said...

If they are lying, and Trig actually has FAS rather than DS, people will eventually find out, as the two are not identical. someone on this blog already has stated how you can tell the conditions apart by looking at the face.

Margot said...

Where can I find a copy of the doctor's letter that is the subject of conversation?

Anonymous said...

Comment at 1.19

This all sounds like pure speculation to me. There is no substantive evidence here - just hearsay.

And I do believe that SP faked her pregnancy but also that we should stick to the facts as we can present them.

Anonymous said...

luna @ 12.06

I can think of NOT ONE expecting mother whose water has broken before her due date who would not immediately rush to a hospital in order to secure her child's wellbeing. That Palin did not do so is indicative of her stupidity or the fact that she could not do so because she was not pregnant. There can be no other possibility in this regard. She was either reckless with her child's wellbeing or not pregnant. You decide.

luna1580 said...

hey everybody :)

please re-read the ADN article about trig's birth i linked in my last comment, especially the part about 2/3rd's down headed "early arrival", in fact it's worth it to read only that part.

i just did, and it's revealing to read all the quotes, in context, after giving this so much thought.

here's the link again:

ADN birth story


Anonymous said...

Jessica McG -- I was just remembering this very same quote that you posted. It was rumbling through my mind all night. So imagine my surprise to see your post there this AM. The FAS is intriging, because the only source of the DS diagnosis is SP, I believe. And the MD letter, re which we are noodling the "fake or altered" possibility.

--Amy the first

Craig said...


Unless someone can show me otherwise, no doctor has the authority to "ban" someone from flying. They can strongly advise against it, if the situation warrants.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it true that the one and only place the Down Syndrome diagnosis is documented (i.e., stated by an authority who would know, based on testing) is in the CBJ MD letter?

It seems to me that everywhere else I've ever read it, it was presented as fact, but not authoritatively, including by SP, who would know only from an MD test.

And further, assuming the MD letter is not authentic, we do not really know whether there was ANY prenatal testing (CVS, sonogram, amnio) that would identify any abnormalitites before Trig's birth?

Help me out here: isn't the MD letter the one and only publicly available SOURCE for this? And everything else is heresay, based on the supposed medical knowledge that is presented ONLY IN THIS LETTER?

That certainly makes the issue of fake/authentic re the letter that much more important!

Jessica McG, it is your post that jogged my mind into connecting these dots, if indeed they are able to be connected.

Please, anyone, if this is incorrect, please advise!

--Amy the first (the other Amy seems to have disappeared now)

Diana said...

Some great articles are showing up on the internet questioning and using this blog as source.

Keep up the good work. It is driving the media to pay closer attention and maybe to even do a little digging of their own!

artful_dodger said...

I'm lookin at the video of the hike and at 05:50 and after it sure looks like she's packing something. At 5.57 i can see some 'belly' pretty clearly. I had to pause the video at that point.
At 6.26 I paused because the shot is of her back towards cam. and the fabric of her zipup pulls a lot (was looking for straps for the 'belly')
At 7.00 she's in the office talking and it looks like something is under that zipup, to me.
At 9.48, again

I would almost agree that it, at times, appeared that SP had a bit of a tummy in some parts of the video. But I have a jogging jacket similar to that one and I hate the way the zipper on the front is stiff and makes me look "poofy" in the front. Those jacket zippers are always heavier and stiffer than the fabric so they take on a shape of their own. Near the very end of the footage, SP clasps her hands in front of her, just below the bust line. There is no evidence there of any belly under the jacket at that point.
And, isn't she pictured in another photo wearing that same jacket at a later date with a flat stomach? The one were she is posing in a doorway with another woman.

Anonymous said...

anon 1:19 AM
I don't know what happened to that rumor but, personally, I'd have a hard time believing the FAS part of the rumor. Fetal alcohol syndrome occurs with mothers who are abusing alcohol- as in the real, true alcoholic. Many mothers have over-indulged on the drinks before finding out that they were pregnant. Not uncommon at all, yet how many FAS kids do you see walking around today? Hell, every one of us born in the fifties and sixties should have it because a few cocktails during pregnancy back then wasn't discouraged.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...


Anonymous said...

Fetal alcohol syndrome is nothing at all like Down syndrome.

The two syndromes do not look alike (faces are not alike). The two are easy to distinguish from one another by other features, as well (palmar creases in Down syndrome babies, etc.) and by chromosomal analysis.

Drinking during pregnancy has nothing at all to do with Down syndrome, and the whole fetal alcohol thing has been vastly overdone in the media, IMHO.

Though no one would advise drinking during pregnancy now, alcohol used to be administered in large doses medically to high-risk mothers to stop preterm labor.

As a previous poster mentioned, almost the entire baby boomer generation would have been severely afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome if infants were so vulnerable, since many of our mothers smoke and drank heavily during pregnancy.

I even have an early edition of Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care in which he advises nursing mothers to relax with a cigarette and a glass of beer to stimulate the milk let-down reflex!

Trig has Down syndrome or at least looks that way from his pictures.

luna1580 said...


as far as i know you're right, a doctor cannot "ban" someone from flight, doctors are not cops.

what i meant by "would not let her fly" was this scenario:

she goes to the hospital in texas. the doctors examine her and say "yes your water's broken and you're x-amount dilated. the baby could come anytime now and because this is a high risk pregnancy we want to set you up with a fetal heart monitor and look for any signs of distress until he's safely born. we'll take good care of you both."

and then she just says, "thanks, but no thanks. i've got a flight to catch and 19 hours of medically unsupervised traveling to do!"??? that's inconceivable!

a similar idea is you go to the ER with jaw pain and find out you're having a heart attack, i suppose at that point you're free to leave and not seek treatment -but who in their right mind would do so?


Anonymous said...

As to the health letter "written" by CBJ, another inconsistancy: CBJ states that she is on active staff at Providence Alaska Medical Center (which is in Anchorage). She is, in fact, at the Wasilla branch of Providence according to the hospital website at
It states:
Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, MD
Family Medicine

Providence Matanuska Healthcare
1700 E Bogard Road, #100
Wasilla, AK 99654

If the good doctor would not be specific and accurate about herself, how can we be convinced about the rest of the letter?

Alex said...

Anon 5:42

I thought exactly the same thing, only I was listening to the story on NPR, where investors were being interviewed and talked about how brilliant Madoff was, how everyone thought him the BEST, most exclusive man to trust with your money. I have not read yet about those who tried to warn against him.

When too many things do not add up, they don't add up.


Patrick and Kathleen,

Great work on the Flickr photos. Thank you for the new reorganization, and as always, thank you and Audrey for commiting to the process. At least with this blog, you're not alone.

Anonymous said...

I think the rumor was wishful thinking or tongue-in-cheek.

I suppose if some group planned to bust Palin mid-Oct. they might have decided to hold off because the economy by then had made Obama the sure winner and Palin would still be in a position to retaliate in Alaska.

If the Dems have built a case against Palin's pregnancy, they will wait to use it when she is the Repub candidate for governor, Senator, VP, whatever, and the expose would help her Dem opponent.

What about the media? My guess is they will wait until after Christmas when Bristol does or doesn't have a baby, so that they cannot be accused of attacking or upsetting her. Then they will also have more evidence (e.g., late birth) for their case.

Unlike Palin's political opponents, the media would prefer to spill the beans when there is no election, so they can't be accused of picking sides. -B.

gpbag said...

I've been following this blog for a while now, it's as entertaining as any 'whodunnit'.
My background as a family practice Dr and now a mother of 2 leads me to conclude her description of the events leading up to Trig's birth are highly improbably.
From the time I first heard this story I thought it was so unlikely that there had to be something in the rumors about Trig's true parentage.
No normal woman would disregard a possible amniotic fluid leak at 35 weeks gestation. While it is theoretically possible that a very small leak may not have prevented her from making her speech and taking the long flight home, it seems highly unlikely that an educated, experienced woman with the kind of support and resources she has, would not seek a medical consultation if she suspected amniotic fluid was leaking. Multiparous woman (a woman about to give birth for the 5th time is defined a a 'grand multipara' in obstetric terms, and carries higher risks of some complications) can deliver very quickly, amniotic fluid leaking can precede the onset of true labor, and can pose risks for the fetus (cord prolapse). Obstetric evaluation would indicate whether any fluid leakage is amniotic fluid and provide reassurance about fetal wellbeing. This could not be accomplished by a phone consultation and I doubt very much that her doctor (if contacted at all) would have OK'ed the 'wild ride'. But, of course, we only have SP's word that she did - she may have recommended that SP get evaluated in Dallas and SP chose to ignore that advice.
If she did indeed have a small leak, and labor did not commence spontaneously, she would need to be induced (as described) - this is obstetric protocol.
As I followed the election campaign it became apparent that SP has a very casual relationship with the truth. She has been caught in numerous, well documented lies, and does seem to make things up on the fly.
So it may be that the story of Trig's birth makes no sense because it simply did not happen the way she described it. It does not mean she did not give birth to him, or that some elements are not true.
I agree there are so many odd things about this - Bristol's absence prior to Trig's birth, the mysteriously variable proportions of SP's baby (?) bump, the unusually late annoucement that she was pregnant (and the fact noone had suspected prior to this).....
However, if CBJ's letter is genuine, I think it is quite unambiguous. SP is Trig's biological mother (as far as CBJ is aware). The letter need not have been composed by CBJ, but it carries her signature which would normally mean she has read and agrees with it's contents.
There are a lot of interesting theories put forward on this site, some do seem to me to be a bit far fetched.
I thought I'd contribute another theory for you all to consider - Maybe SP did give birth to Trig, but before the conference in Dallas. That could explain the pictures of Trig looking 'older' than a newborn premmie. It could also explain the need to leave the conference early and rush back to be with him. Why would she do this? If this conference was politically important for her, given she was actively seeking the VP position, she may have been determined to attend. If Trig was born prematurely shortly before the conference it certainly would have raised eyebrows for her to leave him to attend a conference (would not win any mother of the year prizes for this!). Her slight baby bump at the conference could have been a postpartum bump. The amniotic fluid leak, induction etc may have been correct in a different setting).
Hopefully someone will have info on her whereabouts prior to the conference so i can stop wondering about this.
So, finally, kudos to Audrey for her diligence, persistence, and non-sensational handling of this. I feel strongly that there is deception surrounding Trig's birth though I am not sure what it is exactly that SP has lied about. Hopefully. the truth will come out.

Anonymous said...

Ok, here is a site which has linked to this one and it is one a lot of people read:
Go to that site and scroll down to Christopher Brauchli's article titled "Birth Places and Mothers".

He is dissing the whole thing, but I posted a comment. It is easy and free to register there to post comments, you do need a fake name of some sort.
I would encourage readers here to go to that article and post some more information, I kept it pretty general partly because no notes in front of me and partly because i realize that we have all been living with this issue for a long time so it's all pretty obvious to us, but to most readers it's all still pretty
'out there'.

Anyway, check it out, and I hope some of you register and post comments, and/or contact the author (Christopher B.) directly.

It's been nine months since the first 'pregnancy announcement.' And this baby's a'comin, the labor is about over !

Anonymous said...

I just read the article that was posted in the ADN on April 22.

I was of the opinion that labor they had to be induced because the membranes had ruptured,in which case the likelyhood of infection dictates the need to deliver the infant. However, if the membranes had not ruptured, and were still in tact, why didnt the Dr. try and delay the delivery as long as possible.

Not in labor. Not leaking fluid. Premature high risk infant. All I can say is : Keep this woman and her decision making away from me, and my family. And as for that Dr. What can I say. Please someone in Alaska, take a look at that Drs lack of professionalism.

If a Fanily Practice MD had advance knowledge that her patient was going to deliver a high risk infant, I guarantee you that MD wpuld have referred that patient to an Obstetrician and would have had a Pediatrician present in the delivery room at birth. (DS babies have a high incidence of heart defects)

The problem is, everybody knows that. They just let this woman drag down motherhood, womanhood, and humanity in general.

And Palin has done such a dis service to DS children. She is setting a terrible example of how to care for a special needs child. Many DS children can be come quite functional, but it takes lots, and lots, and lots of time, love, and sacrifice.
My DS grandchild is attending college, but it didnt happen by treating him like a sack of flour.

I fear it will take a long time to undo the damage Mrs. Palin has done To women and DS childrem.

Anonymous said...

Some folks seem to be looking at the "has a baby bump" and "has no baby bump" photos as if they are equal in weight; but they are not. In evaluating the photos, it's clear that some of them show a bump some of the time. This is noteworthy, and we should consider these photos with care --but they are not definite proof of pregnancy. It could be a real baby bump; or it could (in some ambiguous cases) be the way the clothes are hanging or bunching; or it could be a disguise. The ambiguous cases are probably not going to be resolved as they are subjective; but of course, if a disguise is revealed, that becomes proof.

But some of the photos from March definitely show NO bump. This IS proof, because it is not physically possible to give birth to a 6 lb baby in mid-April if you have a flat abdomen on March 14th or March 26th. I repeat; it is not possible.

Jen said...

to gpbag:

regarding the whereabouts of sarah... i have been working on a timeline that follows sarah's whereabouts from end of feb until april 22nd... i can tell u for a fact that sarah was out and about in Juneau for the entire month of april, until she flew to dallas

we have pics of her in juneau on 4/10 doing the americorps pledge, of course her baby bump is cleverly disguised by her giant black jacket and carefully placed folderbook she is holding

anyways, the point is, she was nowhere near wasilla for quite some time...

also, what a lot of people do not realize is that Sarah didn't just go to that conference and give a quick speech...

she sat in on a forum panel discussing the '08 elections. the moderator asked the governors in attendance if they would reject a VP offer, Sarah did not raise her hand to say she would reject it.

so again, it's not just 'the speech' -- this woman actively participated in every event that morning up to the point she did her speech and left -- the speech was at 'lunch time'.

does this sound like a woman that is concerned that her water just broke FIVE weeks early and she was thousands of miles away from home.

i ask all those that believe sarah palin to ask yourself this question:

if sarah and todd were so desperate to NOT have trig in dallas, tx, why did they wait so long to leave Tx.... nearly 12 hours... and nobody here can honestly say that the governor of AK couldn't have found some way to leave Tx immediately in a medical emergency, when the whole thing started at 4am...

Anonymous said...

To Jen: could you post a brief summary of the whereabouts that you researched? Specifically, was there anything else going on in Juneau on the 13th (aside from a folk festival); and when did Sarah actually fly to Dallas? She went from Juneau, right, and didn't go back to Anchorage or Wasilla first? Thanks!

artful_dodger said...

i ask all those that believe sarah palin to ask yourself this question:

if sarah and todd were so desperate to NOT have trig in dallas, tx, why did they wait so long to leave Tx.... nearly 12 hours... and nobody here can honestly say that the governor of AK couldn't have found some way to leave Tx immediately in a medical emergency, when the whole thing started at 4am...

Sheesh! The answer is right there in the official governer's press release statement. They were "thankful" that her labor began in Texas but that it "let up enough for her to travel back to Alaska". It let up, there's your answer.
You know, the way you and I are thankful that the rainstorm "let up" enough for us to make a mad dash to the car in the Walmart parking lot. Or the way a recent heavy snow "let up" enough for us to attempt a short drive home. Oh! Or back when my neighbor's heart attack "let up" enough for him to take a long flight to Florida to visit relatives and maybe seek out some treatment (after a light lunch, of course). Er,....maybe the term "let up" shouldn't be applied to potentially life-threatening medical emergencies.

Jean-Marie said...

To anonymous at 6:49 -

True about CBJ's address - and also the phone number comes up for Steven Kilkenny on the reverse look-up.

Craig said...


That's an easy one. Sarah/Todd wanted the child born in Alaska, as per reported statements. Todd arranged earlier flights home, as per reported statements. Sarah was in regular communication with her doctor throughtout the onset of this leakage to assess the ongoing issue, as per reported statements. The doctor felt the risk was not unreasonable to return home, as per reported statements.

You may not like/agree with those points, but they have been reported as such.

My own speculation: since she had a flight change in Seattle, if the situation did become more urgent, she could have reluctantly chosen to deliver there. That may, or may not, have played into the equation.

Craig said...

One more point:

Unless I am missing something quite obvious, I am also not following the point that some people have made about how Sarah had put the airline crew and all its passengers in great danger by making this decision.

In danger of upsetting them, maybe. In danger of inconviencing them, maybe. The more likely reaction and focus would have been concern and a desire to help. Not a bunch of panic-stricken passengers running up and down the aisle screaming and trying to break down the pilot cabin door!

The only people in any real potential danger, should the worst case scenario have happened, was Sarah and the baby (which would be bad enough).

But then, maybe I am just unaware that a baby who is born in flight turns into a flesh-eating monster.

I'm no OB/Gyn but again, in a scenario in which she develops signs of labor contractions , they would have sought emergency clearance at an airport, landed, and quite possibly even had time to get to a hospital. Speculative, but still very possible.

And again, like it or not, Sarah and her doctor agreed that her personal situation was such that this was still an unlikely possiblity, regardless of outside, after-the-fact speculation.

Given everything known, I still don't see how anyone truly looking at this with dispassionate objectivity, could see this decision to fly home as evidence of a fake pregnancy.

Anonymous said...

Craig: It is a shame Bush is soon leaving the White House; you would be a natural to serve as his press secretary.

artful_dodger said...

My own speculation: since she had a flight change in Seattle, if the situation did become more urgent, she could have reluctantly chosen to deliver there. That may, or may not, have played into the equation.
LOL, and I speculate that, not only are you not an OB/GYN doctor, but you are most certainly not a mother. Or even a father, for that matter. I've had three natural childbirths and, I'm sure many other mother's can back me up on this, I don't think the option to time any of my deliveries to happen on a layover, "reluctantly" or not, was ever an option. You know why? YOU DON'T GET TO CHOOSE WHERE OR WHEN YOU DELIVER! It can happen in 15 minutes or 15 hours. You can't hold it in. It's not a poop!
That was too funny.

Anonymous said...

Craig, with all due respect, you are out of your mind. Do you have children? If so, does anything in your experience of their birth fit what Palin claimed happened?

Not trying to get into a personal thing, really, though it may sound that way. This is my way of saying the vivid recollection of the birth of my two sons, and the way the doctor and hospital were involved, compels me to disbelieve Palin. I don't think she gave birth to Trig; but if she did, it didn't happen like she said it did.


KaJo said...

Craig, you're being unnecessarily dense, or naive.

The news outlets online are FULL of "reported statements" from Blagojevich and Rahm Emmanuel (mostly bleeped, I understand), "reported statements" from Obama and his staff (that neocons absolutely don't believe), "reported statements" about how the bail-out money is going to be used from Bush et al (that NOBODY believes)...

...And you're saying you believe ALL of the stuff about Palin's pregnancy and "wild ride" -- at least, what you stated above, anyway -- without questioning any of that?

From what you've said to this point, you believe:
1. Palin managed to maintain her pre-pregnancy figure until she was nearly 8 months pregnant,
2. that she somehow had regular increased-risk prenatal visits by Dr. CB-J during the 6 weeks or so that she was in Juneau prior to flying to Dallas in April despite the considerable distance travelling back and forth (and it's not like she had nothing else to do),
3. that her advanced age for carrying another baby did not hamper such mundane things as wearing pantihose, high heels or boots, or crossing her legs, when most women her age are prone to problems like swollen ankles, pre-eclampsia or gestational diabetes -- and for multigravidas like her, placental or presentation/position abnormalities (very dangerous for both mother and infant), cervical laxity or bladder control problems.
4. that with all the possible dangers of these complications that could occur at any time before the infant's birth, she chose to fly not just across the country, but over 8,000 miles one way to attend a conference.

Oh, yeah, I just thought of something else. No matter whether Sarah Palin flew coach or 1st class on "the wild ride", she still had to go through security, wait long hours in the layover, and sit for long hours (swelling).

Very difficult for a pregnant woman, with poor access to the toilet (constipation), dehydration (uterine cramps) in the atmosphere aboard the plane, danger of blood clots in the extremities...


As for your final comment about "not following the point that some people have made about how Sarah had put the airline crew and all its passengers in great danger by making this decision"?

Do you mean HERE? I'll be danged if I can find ANYWHERE in this thread or the one just previous -- a total of 270 comments -- where someone claimed that.

Tell us where you read that -- maybe you should be asking that question at some other blog. Confused, maybe?

Mary G. said...

Craig, since you are such a close reader of the good Doctor Cathy Baldwin-Johnson's "medical" opinions, why is it that she has not once commented on said opinions since those initial statements--some in quotation marks and some not--right after Trig's birth?
It is true that no danger came to Trig or to Palin--although whether Palin is Trig's birth mother and whether Cathy Baldwin-Johnson was the delivering physician (go back and read those statements and tell me where it says she was)--that's a whole 'nother ballgame.

Craig said...

Chill, artful!

I merely made an off-the-cuff speculation (which is fairly common around here) that IF her situation changed enough between Texas and Seattle that the risk factor moved outside of "reasonable", that the scheduled flight change could allow her to go still get to a hospital safely.

This is NOT about thinking, "Well, we'll get you to Seattle and according to my unique, patented baby-delivery time calculator, you will have just enough time to get to a hospital".

Remember, they are working off of a mutual determination that the flight is still a safe enough option for her particular, individual situation.

Anonymous said...

It's crazy people like those of you at this blog that burned down Governor Palin's church. Her only crime is that she's an ordinary citizen that tried to make a difference in America by running for office.

Are you going to start arguing that Palin's Vast Pregnancy-Faking Conspiracy burned down the church to hide records of Trig's birth?

You people sicken me.

Anonymous said...

People who make assumptions like "crazy people like those of you at this blog" sicken ME. Go back under the rock you crawled away from.

Anonymous said...

Craig said

I'm no OB/Gyn but again, in a scenario in which she develops signs of labor contractions , they would have sought emergency clearance at an airport, landed, and quite possibly even had time to get to a hospital. Speculative, but still very possible.

And again, like it or not, Sarah and her doctor agreed that her personal situation was such that this was still an unlikely possiblity, regardless of outside, after-the-fact speculation.


Regarding your scenario, how much scrutiny do you think Palin would have received had the pilot radioed the tower that a woman, the governor of Alaska, was in labor? You are assuming that the passengers on plane would be quite understanding. Probably so, until they found out that she was around 8 months pregnant and knowingly got on that plane some 8+ hours after her water broke in an attempt to try to make it back to Alaska soil before delivery.

And no one was privy to any conversation between Palin and her physician, but what was told was conflicting. Had the medical records been released as requested, all questions would have been answered.

Palin brought all this upon herself which raises another question as to why.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 7:30

No, we are all aware that in this day and age when someone wants to get rid of paper evidence...they
just start shredding.

luna1580 said...


your continued presence here fascinates me! i know you've stated that you only want to defend the idea that SP was pregnant as she stated, not her "wild-ride" or other issues people have posted about. fine and good. but i have to think you're also here because you have a little bit of doubt somewhere in your mind about the SP birth story, and that's part of what compels you to come here and read so many comments and respond. it's always good to have a devil's advocate in any discussion, so i don't mind you being here at all -just try to keep all your arguments logical, please.

about the "risk to everyone! monster people-eating baby!!!" ieeeeeeeeeeh! (lol).

i know i myself have posted that if the governor went into apparently life-threatening labor that the commercial flight she was on might try to make an unscheduled landing somewhere to get her medical aid. and yes, i think this would inconvenience people on the flight and it was terribly inconsiderate for her to put those people in such a (possible) situation. just as i think it was terribly inconsiderate for her not to inform the airline of what was going on with her pregnancy when she boarded her flights. rude and again showing selfish poor judgement? absolutely. life threatening (to any but her and trig)? no.

further more, i'm not even sure they would've had an emergency landing for her. i only speculate so because she was the alaskan governor flying on alaska airlines. for comparison, my father is a cardiologist, and when i was about 12 (so 1992) the two of us were flying from chicago to ft. myers florida to meet family. about half way through the flight the captain made the dreaded and unlikely "is there a doctor on board?" announcement and he answered it. he was gone (from our seats) for about 40 minutes. when he came back he told me a passenger in first class had apparently had a heart attack and died, there was nothing further that could be done. i was freaked out and we sat in silence the rest of the way there. the point is there was NO emergency landing. the person just died, and i assume they took the body off first out of first class, very quietly, then commenced general deplaning. i don't know what kind of policies different airlines have about things like this, i just assumed they might stop at an unplanned airport for the governor.

again, i direct everyone who's curious to the ADN article published 4.22.08 that talked about the travel, birth, and DS diagnosis here

this is the most revealing part of the article:

"Early Thursday -- she thinks it was around 4 a.m. Texas time -- she consulted with her doctor, family physician Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, who is based in the Valley and has delivered lots of babies, including Piper, Palin's 7-year-old.

Palin said she felt fine but had leaked amniotic fluid and also felt some contractions that seemed different from the false labor she had been having for months.

"I said I am going to stay for the day. I have a speech I was determined to give," Palin said. She gave the luncheon keynote address for the energy conference.

Palin kept in close contact with Baldwin-Johnson. The contractions slowed to one or two an hour, "which is not active labor," the doctor said.

"Things were already settling down when she talked to me," Baldwin-Johnson said. Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said.

"I don't think it was unreasonable for her to continue to travel back," Baldwin-Johnson said.

So the Palins flew on Alaska Airlines from Dallas to Anchorage, stopping in Seattle and checking with the doctor along the way.

"I am not a glutton for pain and punishment. I would have never wanted to travel had I been fully engaged in labor," Palin said. After four kids, the governor said, she knew what labor felt like, and she wasn't in labor.

Still, a Sacramento, Calif., obstetrician who is active in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said when a pregnant woman's water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection. That's true even if the amniotic fluid simply leaks out, said Dr. Laurie Gregg.

"To us, leaking and broken, we are talking the same thing. We are talking doctor-speak," Gregg said."

weird things in this- the direct contradictions here:

*around 4 a.m. Texas time -- she consulted with her doctor, family physician Cathy Baldwin-Johnson

*Palin kept in close contact with Baldwin-Johnson

*"Things were already settling down when she talked to me," Baldwin-Johnson said. Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said.

"I don't think it was unreasonable for her to continue to travel back," Baldwin-Johnson said.

wait!- if she called CBJ at 4am at the first sign of leaking/distress, and stayed "in close contact with [her]"

how is it POSSIBLE that "Things were already settling down when she talked to me," says dr. CBJ!

things were "settling down" at 4am? then why call?

things were "settling down" during the "close contact"? makes no sense.

ALSO NOTE: "Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said."

and the weirdest quote in the whole thing to my mind?

"I am not a glutton for pain and punishment. I would have never wanted to travel had I been fully engaged in labor," Palin said."

selfish, selfish, and (probably) crazy!

WHY ON EARTH would she frame the statement as "I am not a glutton for pain and punishment." as opposed to "i would never do anything to risk my baby's life (or health, or safe delivery, etc.).

COME ON, one of this woman's strongest angles of national appeal is her super-strong pro-life standing. she thinks having a baby born is more important than the emotional well-being of the mother in cases of rape and/or incest.

WHY would she make the statement about traveling in labor all about HER (the mother) and not the life of the BABY?

there is either hypocrisy, deceit, or unimaginable stupidity (in a politician) here on a level which turns my stomach. yuck.


Anonymous said...

Any uptick in troll commentaries on here (including from those who claim not to be trolls but yet continue to argue nonsensical opposition points posed only to distract us) signifies that we are closer to the truth than ever before. Courage!

Craig said...


Actually I found at least two commentors who referred to endangering the people on the plane with her flights back home. One of them on a comment thread that you said contained no such reference.

"and if she didn't lie, then i have actually LESS respect for her because of the danger she put Trig and herself and the flight crew and passengers, all so she could sit in on a republican governors conference and discuss her VP potential" ---- by Jen on 12/13 at 7:36AM on the "More Photoshop Fun" post.

"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." --- by sjk on 12/7 at 5:12PM on the "Breaking News: KTVA" post.

I believe there is at least one more that I recall reading.

Yes, I believe that Trig is Sarah's baby. I will believe it until I have a valid reason not to. It will not be through comparing preggo pictures and fonts or print colors on a letter, or by passing judgement on her patient/doctor decision-making.

I have run through my explanation for why I feel there is no alternate story to hide. No need to bore everyone with it again.

Hey, who knows? Maybe Bristol's childbirth will restart a short cycle of media stories that reach back to the Trig controversy, and someone will finally speak up, even if its just as a credible "undisclosed source" and tell that there has been a deception going on.

Then, I'll at least listen.

The rest of this stuff reads like Palin-Hater Club trinkets in their Hope Chest, IMO.

--Spoken as someone who believes that Palin will never again have as much national influence as she did this year.

wayofpeace said...

CRAIG says....

"It will not be through comparing preggo pictures..."

CRAIG, that you can so easily and flippantly dismiss the 3/14/2008 photo,

taken, as AUDREY writes,"35 days before Gov. Palin allegedly gave birth to a six pound child,"

demonstrates that you are (and wish to remain) impervious to the truth of the matter.

as i see it, that image tilts the credibility meter to our side.

sjk from the belly said...

"Palin did not ask for a medical
OK to fly, the doctor said."


Jen said...

To Craig:

then why don't you leave?

Yes, i said those things about the other passengers, uhhh because they are true

the FAA document says so -- NO ONE who is not in stable physical condition should board a plane and the airline and the pilot have every reason and right to prohibit someone who is not in stable physical condition from flying.

the whole 'settling down' thing is a rouse -- both sarah and CBJ only focus on the 'labor contractions' part, Sarah specifically says, had i been in full labor i wouldn't have flown -- but nobody is arguing the validity of that


jesus, craig, can u NOT get that through your skull?

nobody cares about her contractions, NOBODY... she said her water had broken, END OF STORY

she sat in conferences discussing her political future INSTEAD of going to a doctor, just to get checked out

if things were okay with her, the dallas doctors would have sent her on her merry way...

how u find it OK, that a woman on her 5th pregnancy, breaks water FIVE weeks early to a DS baby and sits for 12 hours discussing energy and politics instead of getting to a hospital is beyond me and like i said before -- it shows more about what kind of person YOU are, than anything that we're trying to do here.

face it, you got nothing, Craig, nothing but excuses and a blind eye to scientific facts... once your water breaks, there is no 'settling down' of things in a pregnancy, certainly not 5 weeks premature... and how irreponsible of Palin to not even tell the airline that there MIGHT be a medical emergency -- gee i wonder why -- isn't the life of her baby MORE important than where he is born?

Chris said...

Craig, yes, you are missing something obvious.

You said, “And again, like it or not, Sarah and her doctor agreed that her personal situation was such that this was still an unlikely possiblity, regardless of outside, after-the-fact speculation.”

The point has been made before, but I will make it again for you. It is not possible for Sarah and her doctor to make that determination without a physical examination. We are talking about a pelvic examination in which the cervix is checked for effacement (thinning) and dilation (opening). The physician, (or nurse, midwife, etc.) also determines the “station” of the baby’s head, i.e., how far down the birth canal it is. That is how one determines if birth is imminent or not. The health care provider would also listen to the baby’s heart sounds to see if there is any distress, and check the mother’s vital signs. This cannot be done by telephone. CBJ cannot give a reasonable okay for SP to travel based on how she feels, unless of course, SP is not the one who is pregnant and possibly in labor. Understand?

Anonymous said...

Although I've argued with Craig as much as anyone on the blog, let's not chase him away just because his arguments are ridiculous. That actually helps us make our case because we have to address the points that SP herself and her lawyer might make.

Anyone can check a map and see from Seattle to Anchorage one flies over the Pacific Ocean, and even if one were to hug the coast on the flight, there are hardly any convenient places to land a large aircraft, emergency or not.

So, yes, passengers would be put at risk for any emergency maneuver or attempted landing that may be necessary to protect the health of a pregnany woman and her infant during delivery. On that flight path in particular, one can't speculate on the hazards to others, but SP's decision to fly, if all factors were just as she states, was utterly reckless for herself, your unborn child and the other passengers and crews.

I, for one, find it non-credible that any human being would take such risks for themselves, and be so callous about the potential situation for others. The Palins' explanation for this behavior -- they wanted the child born in Alaska -- is an insufficient explanation under the circumstances. As another commentor states, if it was so important, why wait 12 hours to start to return to Alaska.

Here, then, is a summary of the Palins' priorities:

1) SP giving a speech.
2) Their child be born in Texas.
3) The life and health of SP.
4) The life and health of the unborn child.
5) Preparation of the flight attendants in case of problems.
5) The potential danger to the other passengers if an emergency delivery ensued en route.

Nobody's priorities are so out-of-whack with reality to be credited with having made rational decisions with respect to other matters. How can we trust the judgment of someone with these priorities on their assertion that the labor wasn't active?

So we have reached the reasonable conclusion that SP's story is not truthful. We think someone's real priorities might be:

1) Give speech in Texas.
2) Rush back to Alaska to claim daughter's baby previously asserted as one's own pregnancy.
3) Make up story to try to cover inconsistencies.

OK, Craig, which explanation makes more sense? Ours or SP's?


Craig said...


I have no reason to doubt her story until someone speaks up and gives me reason to consider otherwise. This kind of stuff here so far, frankly, means nothing to me beyond circumstancial/coincidental speculation. That's simply my view.

I am mainly just interested in reading how easily pure speculation turns into "proof" and "fact" in peoples' minds. And what a low bar such speculation has to reach for acceptance, yet such a seemingly impossible bar that information that would be seen as supporting the "official" story has to face.

Just an interesting process to me, I guess.

In regard to your specific points about the article, to me it is clear that the doctor is referring to a later timeframe when she talks about Sarah's contractions settling down.

Read this section again, which I pasted below:

Palin kept in close contact with Baldwin-Johnson. The contractions slowed to one or two an hour, "which is not active labor," the doctor said.

"Things were already settling down when she talked to me," Baldwin-Johnson said.

Palin "kept in close contact" means that she is referring to phone contact AFTER the initial 4:00AM call.

I admit that not asking for a "medical OK to fly" is an unclear statement to me. I assume that meant a local exam and approval, but I really don't know.

Yes, she said made the reference to her own pain and punishment, but if you play the audio from which the quotes were taken, she also said, right before that, that she did nothing to put her baby in danger (her and her doctor's opinion, regardless of what an outside, limited observer wants to speculate).

Anonymous said...


While perhaps minimal, there was increased risk for everyone on Palin's flights. I've read that the riskiest, deadliest parts of flying are take off and landing, with take off being the riskiest.

(See for a description of why)

So, if an emergency landing is required, you have an extra landing, and an extra take-off, that put people in more risk. Much, probably not, but some. Moreover, if the landing is at a rural airport, the runway may not be long enough (endangering all on the flight). It may be a very small risk, but it cannot be discounted.

Furthermore, I have to believe an emergency landing = a stressed pilot and air traffic controllers, and possible human errors that that can entail.

Also, if she is in the middle of pushing, and on the floor of the plane with a Flight Attendant or whoever assisting her, they can become human projectiles during turblance or landing. I don't believe a fully engaged in labor Palin would be able to comply with a seat belt requirement..... As a human projectile, Palin could have hurt not only herself, but anyone she hit. People have been *decapitated* through projectiles in high turbulance.

Finally, even IF she really, really, really wanted Trig to be born in Alaska, wouldn't the best hospital in the state, located close to the airport in Anchorage with a NICU, be the better bet? Again, why the treck to Mat-Su???


Craig said...


See, again, the word "truth" is used when there seriously is no real evidence shown, beyond speculation.

There is "truth" that two like-minded neighbors will agree upon when discussing gossip on the porch swing, and "truth" that might actually stand up as beyond reasonable doubt in a legal sense.

Speculation can be fun stuff, but be self-aware enough to know exactly what you have or do not have.

I've said what I'd want to hear before reconsidering Sarah's story, and it is most certainly NOT unreasonable to require it.

To each his own, I guess.

Craig said...

Easy, Jen.

Someone challenged me by questioning whether anyone really said that crew and passengers were in danger, so I provided the comments that I had read.

And given that the Alaska media and then national media has never taken her to task for this documented case of utterly reckless disregard for her baby and others, I guess there are A WHOLE LOT of thick skulls around who just can't see the simple truth.

Yes, I have nothing, other than a personal medical decision between the patient and her doctor, that has gone without official protest by a medical association, who you would think should be appalled that a high-profile figure (first as a Governor, then as a VP candidate) would model such near-criminal disregard for life by her actions. And without moral outrage by a State/National press who, in a heated campaign, could have played up yet another apparently obvious "dumb Sarah" story to prove her poor judgement.

Look, just try to see that your personal anger at her doesn't necessarily equate to everyone else seeing it the same way.

Jen said...

Craig said...


See, again, the word "truth" is used when there seriously is no real evidence shown, beyond speculation.

There is "truth" that two like-minded neighbors will agree upon when discussing gossip on the porch swing, and "truth" that might actually stand up as beyond reasonable doubt in a legal sense.

Speculation can be fun stuff, but be self-aware enough to know exactly what you have or do not have.

I've said what I'd want to hear before reconsidering Sarah's story, and it is most certainly NOT unreasonable to require it.

To each his own, I guess.

December 15, 2008 9:06 AM


you're at it again -- you throw the word 'truth' around like you really know the meaning

ok, craig, I give...

sarah palin told the truth about her pregnancy and childbirth

so again, answer me this... WHY did sarah not go to a hospital to get checked out to get the medical clearance to fly?

the FAA REQUIRES that only physically stable people fly. no one, under any circumstances should fly if they are in a life-threatening situation, and yet, Sarah did so -- and also managed to hide her leaking fluid from multiple airline stewardesses who somehow couldn't tell that anything was wrong

quite frankly, craig, your excuses are wearing thin

you keep telling us we have to prove something to you before you believe us, but you believe Sarah's story so blindly and yet never explain why?

funny, how you NEVER address the issue of the fluid leak, but keep trying to tell people that 1 or 2 contractions an hour isn't active labor, so things had settled down

let me repeat to you craig, there is NO settling down of leaking amnio fluid -- it's the baby's urine and feces and other fun's produce all day long, every day...there is no emptying of the amnio fluid and then there's nothing... even a small leak means there's risk for infection, cord collapse, all kinds of problems.

so craig, if you can't believe that Sarah faked a pregnancy, why can't you at least admit, you know NOTHING about childbirth and you know nothing about how a woman's body works when it comes to pregnancy and childbirth, and thus you really aren't in the position to be making claims of 'truth' when the 'truth' is, you know nothing that could back up your claim.

As i said before, your willingness to believe sarah did all these reckless dangerous things while pregnant with a multi-high risk pregnancy reveals more about your character.

so, you have been provided with piece of evidence after piece of evidence and you are not convinced, so be it...but how about this...get your own facts, besides all the stuff that we've already refuted and bring it to us and convince us of the real 'truth'

why don't you try asking a few ob/gyns to start with.

why dont u call the airline and ask them if they would allow a woman to fly whose water had broken at 35 weeks and she was pregnant for the 5th time with a DS baby AND she had not been checked out by her doctor.

why dont u figure out why Sarah did not have the baby at Anchorage where CBJ is a participatory doctor and is the only hospital nearby with an NICU -- she was RIGHT there and she returned to Anchorage 1 day (with a 3 day old newborn) after getting home to Wasilla.

so it's not like it would have been terribly inconvenient to give birth at the Anchorage hospital, now would it?

i'll be waiting for your proof.

luna1580 said...


you are free to interpret the article however you want, but you are only assuming the "things were settling down" quote as clearly referring to a later time table because that way it fits YOUR "true" version of the events. the article itself says so no such thing.

to fit your version, CBJ should have said something like "by the time sarah decided to fly things were settling down." but it doesn't.

what it does say is strange in that CBJ's quotes are not time-specific at all, and the "she did not seek medical approval to fly" thing is odd to even bring up -unless CBJ was trying to absolve herself from even the implication of giving SP medical permission to do something so patently risky for the baby, albeit in an oblique way.

since you've declared that nothing but a first person confessional will sway you, i probably won't be responding to you anymore. my final thought for you is it's odd you would take someone's word over visual evidence and glaring logical discrepancies in the story, because -you know- anyone can tell a lie.

i do hope my previous responses to you have brought some parts of the SP story into focus in the minds of readers more inquisitive than you appear to be.

have fun waiting for a "great reveal."


wayofpeace said...

the TRUTH, craig, is that a 7-month pregnant woman, who has birthed 4 babies already, does not look like SP looked in that picture.

common-sense and biology backs that up.

some here have given you a benefit of the doubt, as being a truth-seeker, honest broker in this investigation; i don't think that is a fair assessment.

i leave it to others how to respond to your posts but, as for me, from here on out: i will just skip them over.

Anonymous said... stated

"See, again, the word "truth" is used when there seriously is no real evidence shown, beyond speculation."


Pictures are real evidence...go back and study the pictures and explain how a fetus can grow so rapidly...from a litte pudgy to 7+ months...within a 4 week period.

Anonymous said...

artful_dodger at December 14, 2008 2:57 PM : "They were "thankful" that her labor began in Texas but that it "let up enough for her to travel back to Alaska". It let up, there's your answer. "

Yeah there is your answer, HOWEVER!: Her labor began, and then it slowed down... If taht had happened to me during my pregnancy, I am QUITE SURE my doc would have ordered me INTO THE OFFICE RIGHT AWAY to make sure everything is OK, and that the baby was not in some kind of distress (or in demise!), especially since the doc and SP 'knew' it would be a DS baby!!!

Anonymous said...

I would like to echo Way of Peace:

I, too, will be skipping over any of "Craig's" comments. Paid contrarian or not, Craig is unable to use critical thinking (exactly what he accuses us of--hmm...reminds me of a certain familiar 2008 campaign tactic used know who).

If there is a valid opposition voice to be heard on this wonderbirth topic, a voice which scientifically debates the medical evidence, I would like to hear it. But Craig has proven for two weeks now that he's not up to the task, IMHO - Mark

Craig said...

For Jen, Luna, wayofpeace, etc:

Your level of proof is different (and arguably, lower) than mine. It also appears to be different than the media, or any ob/gyn association, because they have not shown any such level of alarm or outrage at such a blatently negligent example of child endangerment, starting with the April birth and throughout an ugly, mud-slinging Presidential campaign.

So be it.

Your ideas of truth and evidence are different than mine. I require a credible source that would hold up as actionable within media standards, reasonable general public opinion, and basic legal guidelines. Hardly an insane position to take to begin to accept a change from a currently commonly accepted truth.

Like I said, Bristol's baby will produce a new cycle of stories about Sarah, including Trig's birth. Maybe a credible source will come forward with something that can be a starting point for fact-based pressure to be put on the official story. Until then, I've seen nothing but speculation.

Believe what you will, with whatever standards you wish to apply. I'm merely bringing my own two cents into the discussion.

KaJo said...

@ Craig, again, hopefully for the last time: In your comments Dec. 15, 2008 @ 9:28 am: "Yes, I have nothing, other than a personal medical decision between the patient and her doctor, that has gone without official protest by a medical association"

That last part is not quite true. (see ) To wit: Doctor Ralph Anderson is the local director of the American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists. He says traveling late in pregnancy can be risky for women in general.

"By 36 weeks, you should have a good reason to travel," said Dr. Anderson. "You don't really have a very good labor and delivery room on the airplane."

But ultimately, it's up to the individual patient and her doctor to make the call.

"The chances are the doctor has seen you recently, that they know when you've had dilation of the cervix or if you've had any other problems," said Dr. Anderson.

Although, Palin's doctor
[allegedly!] gave her the green light to travel, left-wing bloggers [hey! this isn't a "left" or "right" issue] still questioned her choice and began to accuse her of faking her pregnancy to cover up for a pregnant teenage daughter.


BTW, Craig, in the last thread where you found 2 comments about "life-threatening" where I said there were none? One of them was more than a week ago.

I mentioned that I only went back through 2 threads, the one we were conversing in, and the one previous. So, in the SIX threads you had to go back through, 831 comments in all, you found two "life-threatening" comments, and I missed bad.

Craig said...


The sting of rebuke. It burns!

Feel free to ignore me. I will not miss your condesending smugness toward those who don't match your particular application of critical thinking.

Disagree with the levels of priority I place on "proof" in assessing the validity of evidence, if you wish. But don't warp the broad definition of critical thinking to suit yourself.

Why should anyone be concerned about someone simply questioning points of discussion that are simply speculative-based thoughts themselves?

Craig said...


Sorry, but that reads most definitely NOT as a statement of protest (i.e. "But ultimately, it's up to the individual patient and her doctor to make the call.")

Wow, he really hammered her, didn't he?

Given the hyperbolic fury in which people have claimed certainty that Palin was completely reckless in her decision to fly home, this action should have generated juicy stories questioning her judgement, buttressed by damming pronouncements from medical boards and associations decrying the terrible example she has set for other late-term mothers to follow!

If not by the Alaska Press, certainly by the national press once they were digging into every aspect of Sarah's life last Fall. They were cranking out new revelations seemingly every day! How could this low-hanging fruit be completely ignored, if true?

And regarding the comments I dug back up for you: you were simply challenging whether or not I was making up that comments about endangering the crew and passengers. I provide them. End of story.

If you don't like the fact that I could actually back up my statement, I don't know what to tell you.

Anonymous said...

Craig is correct about one thing and wrong about one thing. The burden of proof for both SP (and her defenders) is the same as for those of us who want to prove she isn't Trig birth mother. That's what he's wrong about. It is a binary proposition: either she is Trig's birth mother or she isn't. There aren't shades of gray.

Short of unedited video of the moment of birth, there will also be some doubt as to who Trig's birth mother is. We don't have that. All we have is SP's statements that she was pregnant and Trig is her child. Hence Craig is right that the burden of proof is greater on us in accusing SP of lying. But we can use SP's statements against her by testing her credibility. If we can meet that burden then we will conclusive prove the binary issue.

What is stunning is that SP can't seem to meet the burden of proof that she IS Trig's birth mother. It should be so easy for her to do! Meanwhile, we are quickly approaching "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof against her assertions. In this aspect, her failure to stop the assault with affirmative evidence is equally probative.

Someone at a press conference has to ask her, and follow up, if necessary: "Discussion persists on the internet and some media circles that question that you are Trig's birth mother. Why don't you release unequivocal evidence, such as your insurance records for pre-natal and delivery expenses, to put an end to this open question to many?"

I'm sure she'll have an answer, but it won't involve releasing any affirmative-defense evidence. But this will come up if she ever runs for national office again.


KaJo said...

Craig, Dr. Anderson's statement is as vigorous a protest as any doctor will make for the record. That's why I pointed it out.

How do I know? I worked for 12 years in a hospital closely with more than 100 doctors on the active staff at any one time, and I worked as an independent-contractor medical-word-processor for a "stable" of about a dozen physicians over a 10 year period after that.

None of them ever categorically "hammered" someone with "damming pronouncements" or would ever "decry" a public figure's "terrible example" (for example, one of them was found deceased in flagrante delicto with a paramour in a hotel. Lots of behind the scenes gossip, but none his peers talked "on the record"? Sorta like Sarah Palin's Alaska coterie of office-holders.) If anything, any doctor I've ever known invokes the "hedge your bet" principle when he's consulting in a doctor-patient relationship, just in case things go different from what he's predicting.

There is also the privilege of the patient in any situation to be able to leave a doctor's office, a clinic, a hospital, an emergency room "against medical advice". The authorization/waiver forms the patients sign at these facilities say this in very clear terms.

That was Sarah Palin's privilege, but that's not the thrust of what we are questioning, or investigating.

I think what all of us here have been trying to say to you is that this is NOT a black/white situation. There are obviously (metaphorically speaking) shades of gray in this whole story, and we know we don't know everything.

Haven't you wondered why Sarah Palin is pictured throughout her public-office career in colorful clothing, then when she approached the time when she was attempting to hide a pregnancy (or "pregnancy", as we've been saying), she began wearing black or dark colored sweaters, dresses, and/or jackets nearly all the time? Why wear funereal clothing when she's purportedly feeling joy about a new baby, even with the DS diagnosis? Why not wear maternity clothing in the same bright colors she's worn all along?

My guess, and what we've been looking into rather thoroughly through the magic of photo image software, is that she believed dark clothing would hide her false-pregnancy accessories, including the fastenings. Well, they didn't.


P.S. You also said, "If you don't like the fact that I could actually back up my statement, I don't know what to tell you."

Craig, I would not describe my feeling as emphatic as "not like". I'm happy for you that you remembered where to find those two statements (out of 831 blog comments). But they aren't really more than a blip on the radar screen, in terms of the big picture of what we've been talking about here.