Tuesday, December 2, 2008

The Nail in the Coffin

Since Sarah Palin was chosen to be John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate, there has been controversy surrounding Trig Palin's birth and parentage. There is no need to rehash old material here; it's available (probably ad nauseum) on this website and blog, as well as numerous other places. To summarize ever so briefly, within 24 hours of the announcement of Palin's nomination, allegations were sweeping the Internet that Sarah Palin was not Trig's biological mother, but in fact she had faked a pregnancy to cover for her teen-aged daughter Bristol. On September 1, to counter these allegations, the McCain campaign released the information that Bristol was then "five months" pregnant, which would have precluded her giving birth in April. Their thinking was oh so simple. "Prove" that Bristol could not be Trig's mother, and then Sarah must be. No-brainer.

This position splintered this controversy into two prongs: one focusing on Bristol Palin, and a second focusing on Sarah Palin. It was always been the goal of the McCain campaign that the focus be on Bristol, in spite of their pious protestations that "children of candidates should be off limits," because framing this story to be about Bristol as much as possible would keep attention off of where it belonged, on her mother. Not one shred of concrete evidence has ever been released to demonstrate that Sarah Palin is Trig's biological mother. We have received one incredibly suspect letter from her physician (which among other things did not even get all of the birth years of the four older Palin children correct.) It does not state explicitly where Trig Palin was born (though it helpfully tells us where he could have been born), when he was born (well, actually, it says 2008), or who actually delivered him.

Since I began researching this in mid-September, I have focused on both prongs. If Sarah Palin is not Trig's biological mother, and I do not believe she is, he must have come from somewhere. Bristol Palin IS the most likely possibility, and I have discussed her and her whereabouts during the time of the Trig pregnancy on more than one occasion. I also have written about her current pregnancy, which I do believe is real, just not nearly as far advanced as has been put forth.

I've also tried, however, to keep the focus where it really belongs, and has belonged all along, the McCain campaign's bait-and-switch not withstanding: on Gov. Palin. Unfortunately, I have known for a very long time that proving that Sarah Palin was not Trig's mother was going to be difficult. One of two things would have to happen.

1. Someone who knew the truth was going to have to talk. This could either have taken the form of actual "talking," or providing some record - like a medical file - that would have proved the point.
2. Some piece of verifiable photographic evidence would have to become available that would unequivocally show that she was NOT pregnant at a point in time where she would simply have had to "look" pregnant. Photos and first hand testimony were replete from earlier during the pregnancy (the period say, from 25-30 weeks) which showed no evidence of pregnancy, but these have been discounted by naysayers, citing, among other things, tight abs and "fashion-assisted" camouflage. We needed something later, something from a point of pregnancy where biology would require that Gov. Palin "look" pregnant.

I believe we now have that piece of photographic evidence.

The date is Wednesday, March 26, 2008. How do we know this? We have as the starting point that the photographer states that this is when the photo was taken. So where was Gov. Sarah Palin on that date? Quick Internet research shows us the following: An event was held at the Alaska State Museum in Juneau, for Gov. Palin to sign House Bill 259, which established the first week of March as Alaska History Week. Here's a link from the Alaska state website discussing the event. Here's a news video. The clothing and jewelry that Palin is wearing matches. This date is correct.

Gov. Palin would have been 32-33 weeks pregnant at this point, based on a due date of May 15th.

Here is the photo. (You can click on it to see a much larger version.)

I cut out the area of her midsection for easier viewing. Here it is.


There is absolutely no way that this woman gave birth to a 6 lb 2 oz baby only 23 days later. A belly at 32-33 weeks is an entity. It is taut, round, has weight, feels and looks "real." It is, after all, a fluid-filled muscle. At 32-33 weeks, uterus, placenta, amniotic fluid, and baby weigh around 8 lbs. This is the same as a small bowling ball. Go fill a water balloon with roughly 3 quarts of fluid. That will be smaller than a 33 week pregnant uterus in terms of size and weight. There's nothing like that in the picture above. There is no sign of pregnancy here whatsoever. There is no baby.

For comparison, here are some 33 week pregnant bellies. I got these randomly by searching on Google images for... 33 week pregnant belly. Do it yourself. There are lots more. I purposely selected several that I think are a good mix, and quite average. Believe me, some people are a whole lot bigger by 33 weeks!






So what DO we see is in the picture above? I (and about eight other people) have looked at this picture extensively over the last 48 hours. I am sure others here will have their own opinions but here is what I, with my associates, have come up with.

Pregnant bellies have a fullness and tightness and roundness that is completely lacking from Palin's physique. It appears to me as if she is wearing a band of some sort. Look carefully at the area below her breasts. The fabric of the gray knit top bunches for about two inches, then abruptly becomes quite flat and smooth. In fact, there is an area that is uniformly smooth and consistently about 5 inches wide from the left lapel of the coat to the right. There is a lighter square of some sort which plainly shows through the thin gray knit fabric. A pad? A label on the band? I have no clue. However, I suspect that this band may have been intended to ride much lower and pushed up accidentally prior to the snapping of the photo. I believe that she was wearing the band to hold in place some sort of fake pregnancy pillow or small pad.

This lighter section ends very uniformly with a straight line ... it's obviously a square of some sort... about an inch and a half from the right lapel, at which point the "band" is darker. One of my associates has suggested that this might be velcro of some sort or some other kind of closure.

Then, right at the level of the button you can see on the right lapel of the coat, there is a darker band, also running from left to right, very straight, very consistent. I believe that this may be the waistband of the trousers (or possibly skirt, I can't tell) that she is wearing. Below that point, the fabric of the top again bunches up loosely, to the point at which the shirt ends and the black slacks (or skirt) begins. Her lower belly is flat. The fabric bunches loosely to the right side. I think she may have her left leg slightly in front, which accounts for the odd fold of fabric at the very bottom of the picture. (And in case you're wondering, I do not know what the white dot is. I believe it might be a piece of lint on her clothing.)

I'll say it again. Thee is no way this woman gave birth to a 6 lb baby 25 days later. There is also no way that this

became this

in eighteen days.

What will the skeptics shout?

1. She does look pregnant.

No she doesn't. There are those out there who could be shown a video of someone else literally pushing the baby out and Sarah Palin catching him who would still insist that Sarah Palin is Trig's mother. We can't speak to those people. If you think there's a prayer of a chance that she could be 33 weeks pregnant in this photo, you are probably one of them.

2. This photo has been altered in some way.

There is always that possibility. I am no photoshop expert. However, we have discussed the concept of hoaxing before regarding photos. This photo was not sent to me. We found it. It's posted on a personal (but still public) home page in a series of several hundred other pictures from the same vacation. If someone creates a hoax, it's because they want something, they intend to achieve some goal or objective. This photo has been posted since late March or early April, before Trig's birth, with no fanfare and no comment. How do you create a hoax before there's even a controversy? Why would you create one, and then leave it lie until someone just happens to stumble upon it? Neither of these premises makes sense.

So what was she thinking of? Why appear in public with so shoddy an attempt to look pregnant? First, I do think she was wearing some limited "fake pregnancy" item. Whether it's a homemade pad or what, I can't tell. I believe that it is intended to be held in place by a band, which could be something a lot like this

I believe the band rode up during the course of the event and she did not realize it. I also find it quite unusual that she is wearing what is obviously a winter coat indoors, both through the signing of the bill (look at the news video) and for this photo-op. This is NOT a suit jacket or a blazer. This is a heavy winter outdoor coat. I wonder if she had intended to leave it on and closed throughout the event, but for this unscripted private photo, she was careless. We may never know, but I certainly think this is possible.

Is this the nail in the coffin? I believe so. It is a datable photo, taken less than one month prior to Trig's birth, in which Gov. Sarah Palin is clearly not pregnant.

What will happen now?

I don't know.

256 comments:

1 – 200 of 256   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Fantastic work, Audrey!

What will happen now? Probably not much until the attention from the MSM is again on Bristol near her 'due date' -- so any day now.
Though for once, Sarah may not actually like the attention the family will be getting this time around.

There could be some exciting times ahead.

Syd. (from Oz)

hrh said...

Bada-bing, bada-bang, bada-boom!

Congratulations, Audrey.

Girl, you are some dude!!!!!

amy said...

wow! this is nothing if not SOLID PROOF

Anonymous said...

Another oddity - where are the breasts? I've had little experience with pregnant women but don't their bust sizes go up a bit during pregnancy? I guess it is plausible that the baggy-ish clothing could obscure that but she has a fairly noticable bust size no?

*Shrug* Maybe I was just one of the few guys not drooling over her when she first appeared on the national stage.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and before I forget...

It's unfortunate that this won't mean squat to the MSM. They'd of course want some more corroborating evidence, probably in the form of medical records. I still think its a victory though, and just maybe it'll encourage an Alaskan journalist to do some serious digging.

Anonymous said...

I think any woman who has been pregnant will agree - she is not pregnant in that photo. Women who get by with hiding pregnancies up to their due date are either extremely busty (not the case with Palin), overweight, or wear very loose fitting clothing. NOT a tight-fitting knit shirt like this.

I don't know what the next step will be Audrey, but thank you for sharing this.

Anonymous said...

Now that the Alaskan Dems are publicly criticizing Palin for shirking her duties and all does not see so fair in the land of the north - maybe the ADN will start digging up that story that Cajunboy insisted they had ready to print about her "pregnancy". This photo just might spur them on.

Thanks Audrey

Anonymous said...

Speaking of breasts -- I haven't seen one photo that even hinted that Palin has been a nursing mother. And as was brought up before - why all the pumping? Does she ever put child to breast? If she is pumping all the time and not directly nursing, that is all the more time she isn't even spending with the baby!

Punkinbugg said...

Good photo, Audrey. At first I thought she was wearing an ace bandage or something to BIND her stomach down to look flatter. Could it be one of Oprah's spanx? Even a maternity Spanx (see link)

http://www.spanx.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2990118&cp=2992553.3010055&parentPage=family

*But then* I see the other "Oh ja I'm preggers" photo taken EIGHTEEN DAYS LATER and all I gotta say is "What the HECK?"

Anonymous said...

Just a point of reference, I was trying to remember the date that she announced, to the shock of co-workers and the public, that she was pregnant. I just looked it up on your main page. That was March 7th. So 19 days BEFORE this photo. No wonder they were shocked at the time. Aren't there some photos between these dates when she looked more pregnant than this? Are they all with her scarves in front? It will be interesting to continue to search for any from that period.

Anonymous said...

Great work, Audrey. I've been anxiously awaiting this post!

What about that woman from ABC News (was her name something like Kathleen Snow?). You mentioned her somewhere on your site as the one representative from a major news organization that would not let this story drop. That was pre-election. Is she still actively pursueing this? Are you in touch with her? What about the ADN? Could someone there make this a national story? I would imagine that most Alaskan's are pretty fed up w/ SP since I have read that she has not been in Juneau (let alone Alaska) since August.
There has to be someone that can break this as a National story. The Huff Post???
I admire Biden and Obama for being civil and respectful of SP at the gov conf today, but I don't know how they did it without getting violently ill. She has to be exposed for the fraud that she is. Too many people still believe in her - it is downright frightening!!

GraceR said...

This is good work, Audrey, although I have to say I was hoping for something that showed she'd had a tubal ligation or hysterectomy. I'm afraid many will just assume or say the date of the picture is off, since it was on a private blog.

Also, as I was checking around for pictures of pregnant women, I came across this picture of Nicole Kidman, age 41, 8 1/2 mos. pregnant, weeks before givng birth. Now.....this is absurd! Don't tell me that strict exercise consisting of many stomach crunches a day can cause someone to hardly show at all (this is what she claimed on one of the talk shows...the View? can't remember). This looks like me after a trip to Carabbas!
http://www.celebuzz.com/nicole-kidmans-sheer-suggestion-pregnancy-s22641/photos-31344561/#bodyinnertop

MC said...

There is no way that she is pregnant in that photo. NO WAY. So what is the real story up there in Alaska, people?

You know, it hardly even matters to me who the real mother is. I am truly sympathetic if it's one of her daughters, because what a confusing way to enter adult life--unexpectedly pregnant (twice, maybe?), no appearance of a stable relationship with the father, and decidedly lacking maternal and familial support. Oh, and played out UNNECESSARILY on an international level.

But the lies...good heavens! Fine--fake a pregnancy if you want to. There's no law against it, and it probably happens more often than we know.

But to accuse those who dare to question of being conspiracy theorists (at best), when it is now obvious that those little tinfoil hats were actually picking up some pretty clear signals...puh-lease. Those signals were reading "hypocrisy" and "deception" and perhaps worse all along. This is not the behavior of a leader people can trust.

Good, good work, Audrey.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the award-winning Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson can release another statement saying this is what a tight-ab'd pregnant woman looks like at 33 weeks (so keep working on your abs girls).

Does the American Academy of Family Physicians have an award for biggest bulls...t doctor of the decade? I nominate Dr. Cathy.

tina said...

Palin: GUILTY

This plus the fact that Bristol was coincidentally missing from school for 5 MONTHS because of "mono" (real mono's worst symptoms normally last just 2-3 weeks) leaves no doubt.

Why won't Palin just SHOW US Trig's birth certificate and make all this speculation go away?
Because she is obviously hiding something.

dubaireader said...

Cannot see the video... Did it 'dissapear'?

Anonymous said...

No she does not look pregnant, but I AM confused about the obvious "band" around her midriff.
I looked up types of fake pregnancy suits, and none of them involve a "band" like this.
Here they are:
http://www.empathybelly.org/home.html and
http://www.trixiepixgraphics.com/fake_pregnant_belly_bellies/fake_pregnancy_bellies.html
I just cannot figure out what that "band" is. It is more like a girdle? But it would have to be one amazing girdle to flatten a baby bump that far along.

Anonymous said...

well, i tried it -i typed the phrase "33 weeks" into google image search and glanced through the 1st 10 result pages. EVERY single woman, and i looked carefully at the the smallest ones in particular, had a belly that stuck out farther than her breasts.

sarah's just doesn't in this picture, period. if anyone is in doubt look at the drape of her coat lapels, especially where a belly would stick out near the little girl.

she is not pregnant. less than a month before trig's reported birth. not pregnant.

let's see if the palin supporters can do anything but throw out a few more of their ad hominem attacks. i predict they will not leave a single logical rebuttal or well thought out reply. it must just be hard for people who reject scientific method as a valid way of gaining empirical knowledge to organize their thoughts, poor dears...... i wish they weren't so nasty about it though, it makes them look even more foolish.

luna1580

Jack Bog said...

She probably left the scarf in the car.

Big mistake.

Anonymous said...

I hope God doesn't strike you dead. Sara Palin is America's only hope in 2012!

Anonymous said...

I took some screen shots of the video. It will have the date included and the website.

It should also be noted that Palin in the pics AND the video has the same necklace, earrings and broach on. So she can't say that was an earlier event where she had the same coat on.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I also read a few months ago that doctors say when a woman gets older, she gets way bigger than women who have children at an earlier age. So Palin would be defying science by getting smaller.

Also, what I think is noteworthy is that there were pics of her pregnant with her other kids and she was BIG, which was normal. So why this time was she smaller.

Lastly, what about that interview she gave talking about her exercise routine that included hard running, when she was supposedly six months pregnant.

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone wants SP to dissolve into anonymity more than I, but this photo, well, this isn't proof of anything.

In fact, it sort of looks like a purposely big, floppy coat meant to hide something. Did anyone check for WMDs?

Anonymous said...

To be clear, I'm not a Palin fan, but I've been skeptical of this rumor from the beginning. And I remain skeptical, despite your "nail in the coffin". It's true that Palin does not look particularly pregnant here, but it also looks to me as though she is hunched over somewhat. I think it is possible that her stomach would look very much like the first example you gave of a woman at 33 weeks if she was standing up straight like that woman. In the photo where Palin's belly is prominent 18 days later, her posture is very much upright. Maybe the rumor is true, but I don't find this evidence to be conclusive.
GT

Anonymous said...

I was wondering maybe the while spot on her clothing was a hole in her jumper which just so happens to be over the lighter patch underneath? Obviously we can't tell from the photo but is a possibility.

Dipsydoodlenoodle

Anonymous said...

Wow. I think it's time for Sarah Palin to PROVE she gave birth to Trig.

Anonymous said...

The New York Times interviewed her shortly after the RNC convention and even they brought up the Trig issue, and Sarah was quoted as saying something really weird : "What am I supposed to do, show them my stretch marks ?" (Must have been first week of September sometime).

My mother in law is a Sarah Palin sort (as are her children, sadly this type of duplicitous behavior seems to run in families) and I have heard comments like this from her SO many times. Not sure what to call it as a tactic, except effective because how can the questioner possibly respond ?

Anonymous said...

When is Bristol due? How's 'that' one coming along? Is the timing right? Keep up the pressure. The truth will come.

Emily said...

To Grace R, re: the Nicole Kidman picture.

One thing with Nicole is that she is almost 6 feet tall. There is a lot of vertical space in her torso for a baby to stretch out. My mother, who is 5'9", barely showed until her eighth month, because her torso was so long. From the back you couldn't tell she was pregnant at all.

Sarah is probably 5'6", 5'7" MAX. And she does not have a long torso, from pictures I have seen of her. She would DEFINITELY show by 33 weeks.

I knew a woman once who, when pregnant, looked, stomach-wise, how Sarah looks in that picture. I use this woman as an example because she was about the same height and build as Sarah.

During her pregnancy, she ate carefully (not too little, but made sure she wasn't overeating), kept working out. The difference? When I saw her look like this, she was about 24 weeks pregnant. Not 33 weeks.

kitchenwitch said...

Audrey, you've done an outstanding job!
Someone grab that video in case it's removed... I tried but couldn't figure out how.

Anonymous said...

When you look closely at the enlarged photo, you will see a white patch of something underneath her shirt, like a sterile pad or some other type of padding...it is very noticeable. It absolutely does not look like a pregnant belly, I know, I've had two of them.

Anyway, of course Palin trolls will get on here and deny, deny, deny...but I have never an will never believe SP's bizarre birth and pregnancy until I actually see photos of her giving birth, or hospital and medical records.

FW from VA

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
If you have children of your own, you should pull up your top lower your pants and ask your mother-in-law to guess which stretch marks came from which child.

As for Palin being pregnant in that photo, NO I don't think so either. A lot of you have guess that Bristol is Trig's mother but all of you seem to have forgotten Willow. She was the one I saw caring for the baby on the campaign trail. Other than Levi kissing the baby that is.

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid I'm still skeptical- are you sure that Mar 27th is the original date, and not just the date it was posted? It mentions "yesterday" in the video, and shows "Tuesday afternoon" on the screen- but Mar 26th was a Wednesday- it is also odd that she would make the first week of March Alaska History week after it had already passed. However, her pants are oddly baggy/dowdy- they do look like maternity pants with nothing to fill them........I do agree that something is very wrong here, though.

Morgan said...

Audrey and I looked at this extensively yesterday, and to me it looks more like one of those heating pads you put on your back, only she turned it around.

Like Audrey, I think Sarah intended to keep that coat buttoned, but I think the pad is where she meant to put it. With the coat closed, it would give the illusion of a "bump" just visible from the opening of the coat.

I think where she got sloppy as when she let the coat fall open. Perhaps she thought leaning down a bit would hide the pad, but clearly it did not.

I do not think it is a belly band over a pillow. There'd be too much risk of the band slipping to reveal a weird bulge above or below the top. No --whatever this thing is, it is stuffed from within, like a pad.

That dark part certainly looks like a velcro closure to me. I sew and think a padded band like that would be really easy to make. Any of you other crafty types out there agree? It's possible this isn't something she bought at all, but something she made.

Anonymous said...

I think her stomach looks bound. Those pants do not fit well and her cheeks tend to get squirrel-y when she's pregnant which they are in this photo.

We still need medical records.

KayInMaine said...

The original photos of Palin when DailyKos first broke the story showed Sarah as very slim in the month before her pregnancy. The pictures today that "prove" she was pregnant are indeed fabricated. There was also a video of Sarah at 7-8 months along showing her slim, walking fast in heels, and drinking a coffee!

Also, as soon as DailyKos broke the original story, the governor's Alaskan website was shut down for 2 days while the photos of Sarah were taken down. Why would the state of Alaska go through all that trouble if Sarah was really pregnant? Oh boy!

As far as I'm concerned, Bristol is on her 2nd pregnancy in less than a year. It happens.

Trig having Downs Syndrome is also a head scratcher, because there are times when a sperm & egg coming from the same gene pool "get together" can result in a Downs baby. Ooopsie. What else is the Palin family hiding from us? Where was Todd Palin or Track (who was sent to Iraq because he couldn't keep out of trouble!) when Bristol got pregnant? Another, 'oh boy'.

Anyways, great post. I believe ya. ;-)

Anonymous said...

I agree that all this is suspicious, but it is still not conclusive "proof." Has anyone interviewed Bristol's friends? If Bristol was in fact the pregnant one, wouldn't some of her friends have known? I can't imagine that Bristol would be under house arrest during the "showing" months. Hasn't anyone come forward with some damning nuggets?

Emily said...

I'm gonna say, as much as I hoped this would be the conclusive nail in the coffin, I don't think it is, because of her posture in the picture. If she were standing up straight, I would say yes, definitely.

But, I can just imagine that there is a belly there. Perhaps the waistband of her skirt (or very baggy slacks, but I think it's a skirt) is pulled up to her belly button, and she's hunched just enough to make her breasts look like they protrude as much if not more than her belly.

Not a big belly, I grant you, but I can still imagine a belly.

I still don't think it's likely she's Trig's mom, I just don't think this pic is as conclusive as we want it to be.

Eva said...

Okay here is my first thoughts on the picture.

Her clothing selection is interesting. The t-shirt like quality of the shirt and the knit loose pants or skirt does not seem like clothing to be worn at a public bill signing event for the governor. I know there is that pink outfit that she wore to grocery shop that people like to make fun of but other than that she seems to a fashion plate. Did the fashionable clothing only come after she showed up on the national scene? We had a female governor the last election cycle and she always wore a tailored outfit at every public event. Even when she went to fairs, football games, etc. What Palin is wearing in the picture is something that not even I would wear to the office.

Also can I just say that I hate the dangling earrings? Not professional at all. The wearing of those earrings is only appropriate for adult women in much more casual settings or very formal events. I don't mean to start a discussion on this I just wanted to get it out.

I am glad to see the comparative pictures posted. As I have read this blog I have thought about asking Audrey to have a section with pictures of pregnancy displayed in different women and during different trimesters. I think the people posting here about their own pregnancies is helpful and pictures can only add to that.

The belly does look suspicious. I mean that's probably what I would look like in those clothes (smile) but she is well known to be a runner and someone who is body conscious. The belly certainly does not look pregnant but is is not flat and taut either.

So I guess what struck me about the picture is that she does not have the look as in the hundreds of other pictures we have seen of her. Despite those garish earrings she is dressed like she is doing house cleaning.

I just looked at the picture again and I believe that she is wearing pants but the way the cloth gathers in her crotch. And the coat looks homemade. Look at the stitching on the lapel.

Thanks for letting me get this out!

palin pregnancy truth said...

While I think this is great evidence, I don't believe it is the nail in the coffin. Have you spoken with the people who took the picture?

I'm afraid that people will say it is not conclusively dated and that she does look somewhat pregnant.

Until we can get SOMEONE to come forward or medical documents I'm afraid this is not enough.

December 17th is right around the corner.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the dating of the picture:

The is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that this picture was taken at the 26 March 2008.

These picture were found on www.flickr.com. The exact location is:


http://flickr.com/photos/65036937@N00/2416840843


There are three other pictures in conjunction with it:


http://flickr.com/photos/65036937@N00/2416826929/in/set-72157604567129173/


http://flickr.com/photos/65036937@N00/2417646314/in/set-72157604567129173/


http://flickr.com/photos/65036937@N00/2416825845/in/set-72157604567129173/

The pictures were taken on 26th March 2008 at the Alaska State Museum in Juneau.

At this event, Sarah Palin signed House Bill 259 into law during a ceremony at the Alaska State Museum in Juneau.

Here is a press report regarding this event:

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/032808/nei_262629787.shtml

http://www.juneauempire.com/slideshows/032808/262629787/slide1.shtml

For the proof of the location, please look at this link:

http://www.museums.state.ak.us/asm/permanent_exhibits.html

On this webpage, in the section “American Period”, you can see the exact glass cabinets which are visible in the pictures on flickr.

In the background of the flickr-pictures, you can clearly see Mrs. Mindy Rowland, legislative deputy director, who is also included in the press report mentioned above, and shown in the picture in the press report standing next to Sarah Palin.

This event was also mentioned in a press release of Governor Sarah Palin:

http://gov.state.ak.us/archive-64201.html

To conclude the dating of the picture it should also be noted that the flickr-user „surfdaf“ herself states in the tags that it was taken on 26 March 2008. Also, the user included the picture in the album “Southeast Alaska 3/2008”.

Finally, the flickr-user “surfdaf” mentions herself in the comment below the picture:

“we met Sarah Palin a couple of months before the McPalin fiasco . . .”

It is therefore proven without any doubt that these pictures were indeed taken on the 26 March 2008.

Patrick

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 5.34

There are lots of photos of Sarah when she is not pregnant looking sqirraly as you put it. Mostly it depends on the side and angle of the camera but in this photo you can see that the picture has been taken with a high flash and is overexposed giving her an odd look.

As for the binding or whatever it is around her stomach the fact is that something is there and it is not a seven and a half month baby which would weigh about 5 pounds. This has to be the most unnatural pregnant stomach I have seen.

Good work Audrey and her team!

Eva said...

RE: anon at 5:27.

There are other sources on the bill signing story. Check out JuneauEmpire.com. They report the story on the same date and have the picture of SP signing the bill.

The date is correct.

GraceR said...

I checked the 2 page medical "report" made by CB-J. She said Trig was born at 35 weeks, which if true, would make SP more like 31 weeks in that picture.

I've been thinking about this all night (yea...I have no life...lol). Anywsay, I saw the video--it was TV film, so the media was there, including the ADN. From the picture of SP sitting at the table and signing the bill, her coat is clearly not buttoned, and she has no scarf. It seems everyone in that room still had their coats on (was it a cold room?). If she was trying to fake a pregnancy, wouldn't it be awfully risky to wear a tight outfit with no scarf and an open coat when the press/media is all around? She surely knew media would be there--they always are at those things. What about the reporters and TV people who were there? They must've seen her sit down/get up from the table--they were running tape. Why haven't any of them come forward?

That "band" thing does look like Spanx to me (from a Spanx fan here)...but why would she be wearing Spanx after she'd already announced?

Emily, Kidman is listed at 5'10", which does allow some extra room. However, she gave birth to a full-term, 7 lb. baby, 3 weeks after that picture was taken! The woman must've been starving herself.

Emily said...

Also, I found the source for this photo, and there were three other pictures of Sarah in the photostream. One was of her seated, probably taken just after or just before she signed the bill. One was of her signing something for the little girl in this picture, and one was of her talking to a bunch of people.

Obviously, you cannot see her midsection in the first.

In the second, you can, but just barely. There is no significant belly, but it's impossible to say conclusively that there is none.

In the last, most of her midsection is obscured by a bunch of papers she is holding, but you can see a small portion - a small portion that looks curved, not flat.

Does this prove that she was pregnant?

No. It's very inconclusive, but I think it does show that if she was faking, she at least tried to have a baby bump visible. If she's not faking, then that woman has the smallest 8 month belly I've ever seen.

The small baby bump (if she's faking) could be her trying to transition from not pregnant to looking pregnant. It would look strange if she all of a sudden ballooned out.

mary g. said...

This is not a pregnant belly. Even comparing 43-44-year-old Palin after 4 (or more if she had miscarriages or other incomplete pregnancies) pregnancies to the first 33-week woman Audrey has listed, one sees that the actually pregnant woman has a high roundness to her belly--in other words, the middle rises to the highest peak. Any knit clothes will stretch most greatly there, become most transparent in strong light (or camera flash), and often the shirt will ride up at the hem at that central area. Palin's top does not do this. It settles strangely in odd crevices which stomachs do not have (perhaps post-partum, when the bowling ball is gone and the skin is still stretched, it will look oddly shaped). While this is not a certified record of a tubal ligation--which none of us could publish even if someone mailed it to us anonymously, it would still be covered by privacy laws and would require patient consent to release, it truly adds a note of finality to Palin's crazy story.
The skeptics and those who would like stronger proof should go back over palindeception.com website, as well as the blog; the accumulation of photos, testimony, and oddities involved in Palin's pregnancy will be evident. It would be nice if some Alaskan with additional evidence would come forth--Palin was clearly not a patient delivering a baby on April 18, so I don't think privacy laws protect non-patients making things up. Mary g.

mary g. said...

Sorry I forgot to add: there are print news stories as well as the news video that place Palin at this Museum to sign 3 bills March 26. There is no doubt about the date of the photo.
The official shots, of course, show Palin seated, with her winter coat on. Mary

Anonymous said...

Another thought?

If her stomach is bound as a type of support why is this at all necessary? As we can obviously see there is nothing there to support. Support bands in pregnancy are used to provide relief from back strain caused by the weight of a large bump which Sarah clearly does not have in this photo.

My only conclusion is that she is using it to pad out her stomach to give the illusion of a bump. The maternity empathy suit that she clearly wears less than two weeks later in Elan Franks video (where she slaps her hand on the very unusual bump) also proves that she had the fastest growing fetus in the history of pregnancies.

Sarah Palin's supposed pregnancy is a made up story of illusions and inconsistencies and there is absolutely not one scrap of evidence pointing towards Sarah Palin having been pregnant and having given birth to little Trig.

It is time for Sarah to tell the truth.

Anonymous said...

I'm wondering where the controversy started. This is just the craziest deception for anyone to attempt. It would include a huge conspiracy, especially if the person is in the limelight such as SP.

And, imagine the people it will effect (including the child -- CHILDREN!)if the birth of the baby has been faked. Yikes!

I could go on and on but I'll wait for the outcome of this controversy.

Anonymous said...

Copying videos from the Internet:

In order to grab all kinds of videos from the internet (youtube, cnn, other newssites etc.), I highly recommend the "Replay Media Catcher". This is unfortunately not a free program. I tried to get watch the video and copy it, but I seem to have connection problems.

Patrick

Anonymous said...

what is that square pad thing on her belly?

Delta said...

If the newscast is dated March 27, and the newscaster references "yesterday", while the on-screen display shows "Tuesday afternoon" then the photos taken at the bill signing would have been on March 26, not 27. No clue why it says Tuesday.

Page 2 of the newsletter from the bills' sponsor also says March 26.
http://housemajority.org/fairclough/pdfs/25/fairclough_newsletter_20080401.pdf
"Governor Palin signed HB 259 – Alaska History Week into law on March 26th."

MC said...

Here is another story (this one from the Juneau Empire) that provides corroboration that this event was held on March 26, 2008:

http://juneauempire.com/stories/032808/nei_262629787.shtml

I am convinced this is the correct date. The picture and the JE story and date match exactly. While the news video says "Tuesday" on the video of the bill signing, the video itself is apparently from March 27, 2008, and the anchorman states that this happened "yesterday". I think it's reasonable to say that this took place on the date that Audrey is specifying.

So, knowing that, I cannot make myself understand how SP can look the way she does in the photo, and then go on to deliver a baby of full-term size three weeks later. He may have come early, but just over six pounds is often the weight of a term baby. Two of my friends have delivered on time with babies who weighed less than what Trig weighed at birth, and both were unmistakeably pregnant at 33 weeks.

I mean, show me exactly where the baby is here. If she's pregnant, he's around five pounds in the pic, so he must be somewhere that you can easily point out right now.

There is no "binding" going on here--binding is what you might do after the baby is born so that you can comfortably move about. There are pregnancy support bands, but they are designed to go under a heavy pregnancy bump and offer support (I am well acquainted with those!). It's not like a Spanx where it sucks you back in to your pre-pregnancy shape! :)

Is this our next president? A lot of people would like her to be. Before she's loosed on the country again, I don't think it's crazy to want an answer to why this is happening.

tullyxred said...

Unfortunately, the palinites have the upper hand because it is nearly impossible to prove something in the negative, i.e., to prove Sarah was not pregant during the time in question. (Only medical records which include a Gyn exam could do that.)Because of the Photoshop issue, even a picture of Sarah in the nude on April 17, 2008 could be questioned. If one does line up the datable photos, however, what we do have clearly illustrates Sarah going from looking not at all pregnant, to trying to look a little pregnant on March 26, to trying to look a lot pregnant.
The anonymous poster calling SP "America's only hope in 2012" clearly illustrated how demented and cultish some of her followers are. SP is dangerous. She must be stopped. The truth must and will come out.

hrh said...

KayinMaine: You're obviously an informed reader (and well-deserving of your status as a star contributor on Americablog!); so, you probably also know that Alaska has an inordinately high rate of incest and rape. The highest in the nation, I believe. I, myself have held this possibility for quite some time after learning of SP's narcissism and obsession with celebrity and career, and being away from the family for extended periods of time. That could make conditions ripe for acting out by family members.

Good Gawd, is the NOTHING irrefutable that points to SP being the mother of this child?

Anonymous said...

I agree this is the nail in the coffin. We have all been asked to take part in a charade akin to "the emperor has no clothes," denying what our own eyes could see and our own brains could figure out, and instead accepting the preposterous story of Sarah Palin's pregnancy, wild ride and birthing of Trig. Now you have evidence that is even more convincing than before, that this was a fraud from the beginning. Thanks for your diligence, persistence and hard work!

Anonymous said...

All the spin in the world will not change the fact that Sarah falseified her pregnancy and that she went on record to attack those that dared to question her story. Are we not permitted to ask questions? Are we supposed to accept as fact what our politicians tell us because they have said it and it must therefore be true? Because that is what they WANT us to believe? We need more control of the lies and fabrications that politians conveniently present to the public as fact in order to portray themselves as holier than thou and morally superior beings who know what is best for us. Outing their lies is where we begin to take control of ourselves and them.

Eva said...

Okay this has nothing whatsoever to do with Palin's "pregnancy" but I just realized that they had to pass a bill to teach Alaskan history in school.

When I was in the eighth grade I studied my state's history. So has everyone I know who grew up here. I am not sure of other states but isn't it part of our education system to study your state's history sometime during your schooling?

Anonymous said...

Audrey: I think the world of you, and I have seen more than enough to be convinced that she faked it. But this photo, even though it is the best yet, will not be the nail in the coffin unless it is paired with medical evidence; I'm thinking a tubal ligation right after Piper was born. Didn't SP say something back then about their family being complete? That usually means somebody got something snipped.

I don't think we will ever see Trig's original birth certificate. It's probably been revised so many times it's up to Version 5.0 by now. The best proof, as you said, is something that was established well before SP realized she was going to have to do some serious covering up. She can't go back and change EVERYthing.

Morgan: I agree with you about the pad under her sweater. They are usually self-adhesive and stick really tight --unless, for some reason, you suddenly break out in a cold sweat. --FishEye

Anonymous said...

Sorry...but this is not a nail in the coffin. I looked at that video closely and at one point she turns to the left and part of the coat opens...you can see a significant curve right below the bust.

This doesnt prove or disprove a pregnancy. I've always been suspicious of this pregnancy simply because of her balking on the evidence. Her doctors report issued just hours before the the election said nothing to truly confirm that Trig is hers. I think the more disturbing story is the story of her flight from Texas back to Alaska while she was in labor. If true, which she claims it is, it's incredibly careless and stupid behavior. And if made-up, then it just confirms the fact that this woman is a pathological liar.

But I think the fact that the National Enquirer has not come forth with any breaking news (when it could be a real money generating story) says as much to me as anything. There is just nothing out there. I've no doubt they've scoured sources, looked at all these pictures, come up with theories and tried to shake a story from Wasilla...there are enough people there who don't like the woman that surely one could find a source willing to squeal...but they haven't.

So....unless you show me truly irrefutable evidence...medical records (which are protected) or an eye-witness I'm going to assume she actually was pregnant

BTW...I've known a couple of women in my time who truly did not show their pregnancies so it is possible.

Emily said...

Hm. I've already posted a lot, but here's another thought:

Palin originally announced that she was due mid-May. Let's assume that Trig is not her child. Perhaps his REAL mother miscalculated her due date. (Especially likely if it is Bristol, who may not have known when her last period was)

And let's say Bristol came to her mom oh, say, early February, saying that she was almost 6 months pregnant (she was likely starting to show).

Sarah makes "her" pregnancy announcement a month later, in early March, and immediately starts trying to gradually look pregnant. She's hoping that her innate skinniness will make people just assume that she didn't show early.

However, Bristol finds out that her due date is more like mid to late April (as the pregnancy advances, it would be easier to ascertain how far along you were). Palin immediately ramps up her pregnancy garb, which can help explain the strange jump from "okay, a little thick around the middle" to "WOW, SHE'S READY TO POP".


One thing I think it telling is that in almost every picture of Palin between February and April of 2008, she is wearing a heavy coat. Even when no one else is.

There is a picture, for example, of her wearing a turtleneck underneath a winter coat, and all the children (not hers) with her are wearing tshirts.

However, if you look at pictures from the previous year, her clothing is always of the same weight as those around her (ie, she's not just a person who gets cold easily).

I think she was relying on fashion to hide any inconsistencies in her "pregnancy". However, it's always when she's at official functions that she looks off - because she can't wear a heavy coat.


Grace R, my point about Nicole Kidman, is that you can't really compare her to Sarah in terms of how far along they look, because of their size difference. Kidman could be as much as 6 inches taller than Palin (several websites cite that Palin is 5'5", not 5'6" as I guessed), so her belly would be understandably smaller.

Also, Nicole's baby at full term was about 6.5 pounds. So in the picture you posted (which was actually taken a full month before she gave birth) the baby inside her likely weighed only 4.5 pounds (assuming half a pound a week growth).

I'm not saying she looks at all HEALTHY, just that she doesn't show as much. Even if Sarah was at the same point in gestation (debatable), her belly should look much larger, given her smaller frame.

Sorry for the rambling.

Anonymous said...

Wow- I was expecting something a lot more conclusive. Did you really have to check with a lawyer about linking to publicly-available photos? Seriously? I am supportive of your efforts (and no, she doesn't look pregnant to me here, either) but this is hardly a coffin nail in my view.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your hard work but this isn't the nail. You need more to take down a politician. I know you all want it to be, but it's not. It's good evidence, but not conclusive evidence by any stretch.

Alex said...

I too was disappointed that the evidence was not more conclusive. But I also know that staying on track and not giving up will yield the truth. Think of how long Bill Clinton philandered? In my experience, lies and coverups, if pursued, are shown up eventually. I believe Audrey, with her expert knowledge of pregnancy anatomy, KNOWS this photo is conclusive. For the rest of us, it just looks bizarre and typically Palin. Maybe not THE nail in the coffin, but A NAIL in the coffin, and that's how the coffin gets nailed shut. One nail at a time. . .

Anonymous said...

just for the record, i being 5'2" have always had a huge belly during pregnancy starting at about 5 months. My cousin on the other hand, who is 5'9" and has a much longer torso, never looked pregnant till the final few weeks. also you need to consider the fact that Down's Syndrome is much more common in older women past 30, and also that she spent way too much time after her water broke flying than in a hospital, stupid maybe, but also cause for concern about things like Down's Syndrome.
I do not think you consider all of the facts objectively, however I admit there is a slight possibility that she is lying. Considering I do believe she is not someone who lies, I tend to believe her. people who hate her on the other hand tend to be those with no morals and would lie any time they choose to save their face.

Anonymous said...

Leave her alone! Would you rather face Romney or Huckabee? You couldn't convince the fundies if the kid was still attached to Bristol by it's umbilical and they're the only ones who think she'll go somewhere. Divide and conquer, let the idiots think she has a chance in 2012.

Anonymous said...

I really think she bound that baby up. Why I don't know, protective of her job perception? She obviously didn't care about that baby's well being. I saw a video of her bounding along to work at top speed 8 months pregnant, that poor kid.

Anonymous said...

The evidence is conclusive to pregnancy experts, like Audrey, and convincing to people like me who have followed all the evidence for three months.

Unfortunately the media will not have experts study the picture(s) and state that Sarah did not give birth to Trig. They will only bite if evidence is "fool proof," i.e., they think no reasonable person can disagree. Being mostly male, they won't see reasonable proof of pregnancy the way most of us do. And the media just doesn't seem to want to challenge Palin about female bodily functions, even if the issue is truthfulness.

Palinites might consider a medical record to be proof but will refuse even to consider this picture. They are wrong. Audrey is right. Thank you, Audrey and associates.

Anonymous said...

Also regarding Nicole Kidman, this was her FIRST baby and not her FIFTH.

With my first child (I was 26, 5'7" and slim) I didn't need maternity clothes until I was 8 months along. People constantly asked me if I was sure I was pregnant. I gained about 26 pounds and delivered a 8 lb, 6 oz baby on his due date.

With my third child, at age 40, I only gained 19 pounds total but I needed maternity clothes (to accomodate my bulging belly) at 4 months (by 16 weeks). With my fourth child at age 42 I was "showing" by 12 weeks. Of course every woman is individual, but c'mon people, it just doesn't work the way Sarah wants us to believe. No way. No how.

Thank you Audrey. I do think this is a proverbial nail in the coffin. I wish there was a statistician among us who could run some figures with ALL the facts we have as to the probability that Sarah Palin could have indeed been pregnant and given birth to Trig.

I'm guessing they are something like a million to one.

Truthseeker

Anonymous said...

I am as dubious as anyone when it comes to this woman's "pregnancy" given the dearth of evidence supporting her pregnancy, the weirdness surrounding Bristol, and the fact that she didn't look al that pregnant.

But I don't see this as a nail in the coffin. she looks hunched over.

Anonymous said...

Audrey, I really appreciate your hard work! Please keep it up--people need to know the truth!

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the latest photo is not the "nail in the coffin." It is an interesting piece of evidence, but Palin's defenders will just say that she doesn't appear pregnant because of bad lighting, bad angle, bad fitting clothing, etc.

In your blog article, you post several pictures of other pregnant women as examples of how a 30+ week pregnant woman looks. I think it would be much more effective if you re-posted the picture from Palin's own previous pregnance (I believe the picture was taken in 1989) to compare with the latest photo. Palin was absolutely huge in that 1989 photo. Based on my experience, women are not HUGE for their first or second pregnancy and then TINY for their fifth one. Nature just doesn't work that way.

Just a suggestion. But, again, I think you're doing a great job.

sjk said...

OT, this is not "the" nail, but "a" nail.

The real "nail" is in her lakeside abode. when someone finally starts digging into the house that Todd and his buddies built, then we'll have the barrcuda hook, line and in the clinker.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 11:41...God doesn't strike people dead! As a Christian teenager I know more about the bible and Christianity than you, if for one second you think that God is vengeful on anybody for any reason. Go misrepresent wacko Sarah as much as you please but leave God out of it. He is a loving and forgiving God...lucky for you since you're the one spreading LIES about HIS name, when all we're doing is speculating about a story that just doesn't make sense. Wonder what they're teaching you about God up in Alaska!?

*Ms. Lexstasy*

Anonymous said...

"This photo has been posted since late March or early April, before Trig's birth, with no fanfare and no comment. How do you create a hoax before there's even a controversy?"

This, of course, also begs the question why someone would fake a pregnancy before she knows that her daughter's would (in her mind) become a problem. The answer might be that Sarah knows about pre-planning for events even if she's a brick brain in most other areas.

Sarah won't talk... Bristol can be induced pre-term to keep the fantasy alive... but the pictures speak for themselves. It'll be interesting where this goes and for how long she'll keep up a pitiful lie.

Margot said...

Audry, I am new to your blog, but have always been suspicious myself.
I started my own blog in an attempt to keep everything I found in one place.
You can view it at:

http://chihuahuasforchange.blogspot.com/


I don't know if I have anything you might not know.
I suspect that there is a really dark reason for this deception. No evidence - just suspicion.

kazoolist said...

Wow. The fact people like you won't stop trying to slander Sarah Palin on this speaks a lot more about you than it does Gov. Palin. Pathetic. Move on.

Andrea said...

Erm, guys: I hate to break it to ya - but according to the original photograph on Flickr -

http://flickr.com/photos/65036937@N00/2416840843

- it was taken on May 27, 2007.

yes: *2007*!!!

twodot said...

I think that the "square" on her belly is due to a shadow caused by a camera flash and the vertical edge of her coat. Sometimes it helps to open images in Photoshop, invert them to their negative image, and adjust the brightness and contrast. I have done this below:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/twodot/invert.jpg

The top edge of the square is due to Sarah being slightly hunched over, and the right-hand edge (Sarah's left-hand side) is due to the vertical edge of her coat.

I am also concerned that in the photos of spring 2008 Sarah Palin looks a lot chubbier in the face than in September 2008.

Anonymous said...

To Audrey and assistants: you continue to do an outstanding job of compiling and presenting all available evidence in the "strange case of Sarah Palin". Your explanations are always very logical and comprehensive, taking into account the vast body of evidence (pun intended) that has accumulated over the past few months. And as far as I'm concerned, I think you hit the nail on the head with your interpretation of this latest photo.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the coffin hasn't been nailed shut yet, though. The Palin "spin meisters" will be able to wriggle out of this evidence, too, and will continue their point-by-point defense of each critical issue you bring up. They will never acknowledge that the "preponderance of the evidence" points to the fact that SP faked this pregnancy, starting in March and concluding with Trig's birth in April.
Any thinking person can see that her story does not hang together. Keep pulling on the strings, Audrey, and it will surely unravel!
MH

twodot said...

Should be:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/twodot/invert.jpg

For inverted image.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks that Palin is going away anytime soon should take a look at websites like TeamSarah.org. This particular site is quite well-done. They are at nearly 61,000 members and during the 8 minutes I just spent on the site, 3 more people joined.

In it, you can find gems like this, which is an excerpt from a poem:

We are the people that stand strong for our beliefs,
because that's what Sarah taught us to do.
We are the people that love Sarah
to the ends of the earth.
We are the people that want to make Sarah shine
showing the beauty she has inside and out.
We are the die-hard supporters across the nation.
We are the Team for Sarah

That's some of the less-scary stuff I've seen there. You and I might think Palin is worthless, but she inspires the kind of worshipful devotion that the right-wingers accused Obama supporters of having for him. At TeamSarah.org, Obama is still a Muslim, a socialist, a baby-killer, and quite possibly the Anti-Christ. The popular vote for him contained the number "666"--didn't you realize that? 60,000 members and growing here.

Troopergate? It's done; she was cleared, in her mind and theirs. The house thing? Well, maybe if it ever gets moving. Her supporters don't care that she is in no way qualified to be president; they seem to love her all the more for it.

So, with a well-organized Internet presence already, Palin will be sure to maintain a squeaky-clean, family image for the next couple of years. Who else in the Repubublican party is going to match her appeal? Romney? Pawlenty? Big YAWNS. Jindal? Maybe, but I can't imagine a website of 60,000+ fawning Jindal devotees.

Some people recommend dropping this whole issue. I see the people at DailyKos are cranky about this blog, probably because they tackled this topic back in September and then gave up after getting a slap on the wrist.

I, too, wish there were medical records available. But I commend Audrey for doing everything that she has done so far. She's working as a citizen--not a professional journalist or even a long-time blogger, and she's gone farther with the only issue that's left that encompasses Palin's beliefs on family, abortion, religion, and secrecy, and how those beliefs might translate into how she operates as a governor and possibly a president.

If you don't think that matters, or if you really think that Palin is just "hunched over" in this picture when she obviously is not, well, that's your opinion. 2012 (and actually, the campaign will begin in 2010, right?) will be here before you know it.

Morgan said...

Andrea, you are wrong. It was taken in March 2008.

Here's a video of the same event:

http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/2036132

Please note the outfit, the jewelry, the EVENT.

Grandmaj said...

If this is the “nail in the coffin” then it is pretty much the end of the line for me with this story. I really wanted it to be the conclusive evidence, but it isn’t. You are comparing a front view of Palin with profile views of the pregnant women who are obviously not trying to hide that they are pregnant. Photographs by nature, are flat. This could easily be a photo of a pregnant woman. There are as many ways to “look pregnant” as there are women. I am 5’9” and have a sister-in-law who is 5’. At one point we were pregnant at the same time and she never showed the way I did. Looking pregnant or not looking pregnant is not an issue for me.

For me, a more plausible explanation is that Palin was pregnant and did give birth to Trig. She was ambivalent about the pregnancy and may even have thought about abortion, but in the end decided to put it in God’s hands. At some point she had a test that showed he had DS. She was in the middle of a dream job, Governor of Alaska, with an eye to greater political success. A pregnancy was the last thing she needed. She did not announce her pregnancy until she had settled all the questions in her own mind and after seeing how she could spin this to her own political benefit: pro life, special needs child. Thus she didn’t tell anyone until she absolutely had to, not even her mother. At her age maybe her periods were starting to become irregular, so she lived in denial for a few months. When she went into labor in Texas, if this isn’t a lie, again she put everything in God’s hands. It would not have been a great loss if in fact she had lost the baby at this point. It would have been God’s will and she would have been free of the problem. Her doctor supposedly said it was OK to travel home, so she would have been free of blame. I would guess that, given Palin’s habit of retribution against those who contradict her, her doctor is literally shaking in her boots. That’s why we have heard very little from her. She can’t defend herself without contradicting some parts of the Texas story.

So why hasn’t Palin given an answer that would prove the issue one way or the other? Because the more time we spend on this issue, the less time we spend on real issues and we all look like fools and will look like bigger fools when she finally provides the proof. This is one issue that can be proven if she wants to and she will when it becomes advantageous for her. This is, after all, about her and only about her. She is a narcissist who drags her family around the country to further her political ambitions. In her mind she is ordained by God to be a leader. Nothing else matters. She will barge through that partly open “door”, she will not blink and she will sacrifice any and all who get in her way.

Anonymous said...

If one wants to fake a pregnancy for someone else you need two things: plausible deniability and a newborn baby at or near the end of the term.

I have to agree with both those who find that this picture is compelling evidence of faking, but I also agree that it is not conclusive and, hence, won't change the debate very much in the wider public.

I do find the large, heavy (unfashionable) coat SP is wearing to be very interesting. She seems to be going to great lengths to shield her body from scrutiny. And not just in this photo but just about every other taken in public even AFTER she announced the pregnancy. At that point, she would know that there would be no reason to hide her 'condition', particularly since the announcement was widely seen as a PR positive for her.

Hence the plausible deniability angle. SP can continue to assert that she is Trig's mother because a) she 'adopted' the child, officially or unofficially, and b) there ambiguous photograph evidence where she 'looks' pregnant, at least to some people.

We are going to need more to unambigously show SP isn't the mother, even though the evidence continues to trend that way.

Dangerous

Anonymous said...

Yes it is 2008, not 2007. The same student in the black hat with long dark hair is in both the Flickr account photos and in the local TV news video. Mom of One, Esq.

Mary g. said...

Even though some posts are claiming this is not enough evidence, the fact that so many pro-Palinites have decided to visit today and tell us this and to re-date a photo that chronicles a known event in a known, public location while wearing a certain outfit, just shows how close we are. Oh, was Palin wearing her winter coat in May at the Juneau museum? There are other photos of Palin and her remarkable snap-back into shape in May right after Trig's birth and she is not wearing winter coats... Or is the date March 2007, perhaps this event happens every year and Palin commemorates it by wearing the same clothes and obscuring her body (unlike every other time she is in front of a camera for the republican male hordes who seem never to have seen legs before). Yes, throw out all your doubts and maybe one will stick, you think.
I also liked yesterday's posts which contained arguments such as, even if she is not Trig's biological mother... some of you were already surrendering that aspect of your heroine when you thought Audrey was going to unveil a bell jar containing Palin's ovaries removed in 2001...
Mary g.

Anonymous said...

I am sure the photo is legit. The family on flicker was on quite a trip and it is right in there with six pages of other pics. Everytime someone comments on something being Photoshopped I have to laugh, most of us go in a resize things, adjust light, crop things before we post them. That doesn't mean they were altered.

The interesting thing - everyone in the room would have known she was pregnant. She clearly was not trying to button that coat and no scarf. If she was faking her pregnancy, she wasn't very good at judging what size to be at this point.

I agree it looks like she might be wearing a Spanx under-tee, that would hold in place some kind of minimal padding. I think the top is just bunched at the bottom, as you would with something that is longer and knit.

I don't see her hunched over either. She might be slightly bending at the knees at bit to be closer to the child, that would explain the folds of fabric in the crotch area - which certainly look like she's wearing pants to me. A skirt wouldn't do that. IMO

May not be THE nail of course, but the story does continue.

Oh - by the way I feel I have excellent morals, thank you, and don't lie about anything except perhaps my weight.

Anonymous said...

Grandmaj -- I might agree with all of your premise about Palin except for one thing -- if the baby had died on the plane, she couldn't just say - the doctor said it was OK. I truly think some kind of child abuse/neglect charge could have be brought against her. They have charged drug addict mothers in some cases, and others where neglect was obvious. So Palin wouldn't have skated out of that very easily. Plus, she could have died, too.

Her narcissism and God-annointed beliefs - I'll agree with.

I actually think that, if Trig IS her baby, it reflects much more terribly on her than if she faked it.

jeanie said...

Unfortunately, as my neighbor can attest, even a tubal (or vasectomy) will not be 100% proof positive. It is so doggone irritating to see such clear evidence of deception, yet not be able to prove conclusively that the deception has occurred!

Keep up the good work, Audrey. Someday, someone will start talking!

Andrea said...

thanks for the correction on the date - I still don't get why it's dated 2007 on the Flickr page, though (and have asked the person who took the picture to clarify, via a comment on Flickr).

don't get me wrong - I hate Palin and everything she stands for, and would be delighted if she was brought down from her smug perch ;-). big kudos to any journalists and bloggers who are trying their damndest to do so.

Emily said...

To Anonymous @ 10:18,

She could have just said she went into labor on the plane. No way to get out of that kind of situation.

If this is the case (wilfully endangering the child), I think she likely never called the doctor but made it up afterwards to look more responsible.

So had she given birth on the plane, all she needs to say is she started having heavy contractions once they were in the air. Having a child quickly would not be surprising for someone on their fifth child.

And she could say her due date was a month away, so she thought she was still okay to travel, given her good health.

No one would blame her.

jessicamarie12 said...

I think it's already been proven plenty, but here is additional evidence of the photo being 2008, not 2007.

On the user's main photo page (http://flickr.com/photos/65036937@N00/), the top left photo titled "Mary on Mt Tam" is subtitled "Spring 2008..."

Clicking on that photo (http://flickr.com/photos/65036937@N00/2530209726/) shows that it also says that it was taken in 2007. I think the user just had a problem with their camera posting the year one year earlier. I've always had lots of problems with the date function on my digital camera.

Morgan said...

I'm thinking the wrong date was on the camera. I know that can be programmed. Maybe the shooter realized this after the fact and reset the date.

I'd be skeptical, too, if the photo were the only evidence. But when you pair it with video of the March 2008 event showing Sarah in the same outfit as in the photo *and* other people in outfits that match photos from that event then the evidence is pretty irrefutable, although people will still try to discredit it.

I'm just glad that this board is read by people like you, Andrea, who aren't afraid to question things. It's never been an echo chamber, largely because Audrey has invited just this kind of debate.

Kevin said...

Thank you, Audrey. Like others here, I feel this isn't the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof I had hoped for -- something like Nixon on tape discussing the Watergate cover-up, something I'm old enough to remember. That's not to say I think that anyone should have a reasonable doubt. Those of us who have not paid a lot of attention to the shape of women's abdomens as pregnancy progresses should defer to those who have. Personally, I have no doubt whatever. But this will not do what the Watergate tapes did: convince the public, including those who would like to believe otherwise, that this person is a liar.

Nevertheless, even if you have only convinced those willing to invest the time to weigh the evidence, it may lead to the emergence of more compelling proof. If, for example, her state-paid health insurance covers dependent children, but not dependent grandchildren, she might be accused of fraud, with the consequence that those in a position to know will be questioned under oath. If she falsely states that Trig is her child on her tax return, she has committed a federal crime. Or less sensationally, a consensus may develop among the press and punditry across most of the political spectrum that if she runs for office again, the burden of proof will be upon her to show that she is not a liar, and until she comes clean she will not be taken seriously. To beat the metaphor to death, you haven't nailed the coffin shut, but you have provided the nails. All that remains is for someone to show up with the hammer.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Audrey, for your continued investigation. The increase in disgruntled Palinites traffic means you are getting close! If this isn't the quintessential, proverbial "nail in the coffin," then at minimum it is one more well-hammered nail in said coffin.

(Question to angry Palinites now reading these pages: So why do YOU think McCain's own aides called Palin a "whack job" in late October 2008? If you don't think they were talking about her "amazing" 2008 birthing story, why do YOU think McCain's camp thinks she's a "whack job"? Please explain!) - Mark

ajesquire said...

I've been suspicious of the Trig birth story all along, for a number of reasons.

However, sticking solely to the photo in question, I do not believe this can be considered the "nail in the coffin" at all.

While I would agree that it cannot be conclusively said to portray a clearly pregnant woman, it also cannot be conclusively said to portray a clearly not-pregnant woman.

It's a head-on shot, probably over-exposed by the flash. She is draped in a heavy, wide, winter coat and is hunched over to get her arm around the little girl.

I also realize that all women carry their prengnancies differently, and many multi-para women carry each pregnancy differently.

I'm not a "palin-ite", by any stretch. I don't believe Trig is Sarah Palin's baby (or at the very least I don't believe we know the full story about the conception of this child). However, I want the evidence that proves Palin's lie to be bulletproof, and not something that that can shatter the credibility of the entire argument.

Anonymous said...

She isn't pregnant in that picture. When I was 23 I had my daughter. I am 5'4" and would estimate almost the exact same size as Sarah. My daughter weighed a little over 6lbs. I was doing a thousand crunches a day leading up to that and I had six pack abs. I'm not kidding. I was ripped. I wasn't as big during that pregnancy as one might expect and I could, in my eighth month, hide the fact entirely from not very observant people if I wore a very loose coat and it was totally zipped up. In something like what she's wearing it was still obvious by the fifth month that I was pregnant. The belly doesn't appear overnight and there is no amount of ab strength that keeps it from showing.

Anonymous said...

To TWODOT, the poster who said we should look at his/her altered image of the Palin photo, posting at 9:39 and 9:33 am ...

Photobucket says your image has been "moved or deleted."

What's up?

-jwc

Anonymous said...

Just a brief note on the coat: That stitching on the lapel? I believe it might be a Max Mara...I have the same stitching on a very expensive MM coat. It's practically their trademark. Likely she bought it ebay or in her putative thrift store. You can also tell by the collar, the swing cut and the softness of the fabric that it's high quality.

I find her a loathsome creature. Keep up the good work, Audrey! L.A.

Stopped Clock said...

Counterarguments:

1) If Sarah Palin isn't the mom, who is and why don't we have pregnant pics of her too?

2) If it's Bristol, wouldn't it make more sense for her to just admit it?

3) I believe your math is slightly off; if the baby's due date was May 15, then on March 26 she would be only 30 weeks pregnant, not 33 (March 26 to May 15 a bit over 8 weeks, and the average pregnancy is 38 weeks.)

twodot said...

I will try again, the comment box
keeps truncating the url.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/
a178/twodot/invert.jpg

You have to combine the above two lines into a single line with no spaces in the url box of your browser.

To reiterate, I simply opened the photo in Photoshop, converted it to the negative image, and adjusted the brightness/contrast. In this manner you can look at light/dark patterns. It looks to me that the "square" is simply a shadow caused by the vertical edge of her coat.

Anonymous said...

Her pants look like they are maternity pants, and could be the same ones as in her big-belly photo.

I lean toward the belief she was pregnant with Trig. It's possible she exaggerated the insane story about her flight from Texas to Alaska in order to make her appear 'strong'.

The simplest and most probable answer to all this is that she embellished the story. She is a proven liar, after all.

Morgan said...

Um, twodot. I don't know how much you know about lighting and photography but the coat wouldn't cast a shadow like that from a head-on flash.

It's not just a shadow; there are distinct top and bottom ridges to that pad and what appears to be a black tab (velcro?) on the right hand side (Sarah's left).

No offense, but if this comment is spin it's the wobbliest spin yet.

Crockhead said...

I'm no Palin fan, but these photos don't prove anything at all. She's hunched over; the shot is from the front, you can't really get depth perpective. Keep digging though.

mary g. said...

When a late-stage pregnant woman bends forward, her protruding belly does not "fold" also. It is a large and whole entity as Audrey described--it cannot be pulled in or bound--just like wrapping a bungee cord around a watermelon will not succeed in compressing it.
As for Palin's stage of pregnancy, I find it hard to believe 6.2 pounds is very pre-term. I think the dates are off--but I think whoever was pregnant with Trig on March 26, 2008 was more than 33 weeks.

Anonymous said...

While I certainly think this photo is compelling, I tend to agree with others that this it's not really the nail in the coffin.

If we're lucky, the Enquirer is snooping around trying to pick up what they'd need (dirty diaper? hair trimmings?) to actually do a DNA test.

Anonymous said...

A question I have that has never been answered it what happened to all the photographs that would have been taken of Palin at the conference she gave a speech at the day before she gave birth. I find it hard to believe that Miss "I never saw a camera I didn't love" had no pictures taken of her at that conference. If she really wasn't pregnant, it boggles the mind how many people are covering for her.

Anonymous said...

It's not a big surprise that the "Pro-Palinates" are trying to cast doubt on the pictures given the fact that in the EXIF-data on flickr it says that they were taken in 2007 (while they actually taken in 2008).

May I remind everybody of the fact that the two famous pregnancy pictures of Sarah Palin, which were taken around 13 April 2008 have an EXIF-data in flickr that actually dates them to 2005!

This was openly discussed for example in the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/anchorage-tv-station-pali_b_123029.html

The Huffington Post commented:

"However, a commentator points out that according to this link from Flickr, the picture WASN'T taken in 2008 but in fact seems to have been taken in March, 2005.

Here's why the March, 2005 is wrong - that camera wasn't announced until the end of July 2005. So now the conspiracy involves TIME TRAVEL, as well!

The time problem is why I called in the first place. The photo is from when Palin was Governor, end of the 2008 session, multiple witnesses, video tape...all the things sane people need to come to reasonable conclusions.

The incorrect 2005 date is easily explained - they didn't set the date correctly. I've done that. Look at these Piroshkis that Flickr says I took digital photos of in 1972, when I was seven years old! Those things are delish, by the way."

Those flickr-pictures with the "2005" date can be found here:

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

The exact same reasoning applies to the "nail in the coffin" pictures which Audrey has posted in this blog, because there is multiple, credible video/photo evidence that they were taken on 26 March 2008.

Patrick

Anonymous said...

I enlarged the photo as much as I could. It does not look like a "band" around her middle, it is a square patch, like a bandage.
I do not know if a bandage is put on after an amniosynthesis - is it possible that this is a bandage?

Anon (for fear of retaliation) said...

Thank you, Audrey, for trying to expose Sarah Palin as the desperate liar that she is.

Alaska and America will be better because of YOU!

Anonymous said...

Couple Questions:

Babygate: Could someone just call Child Welfare Services and let them know a minor (Bristol) may be held captive in her house, not allowed to leave, mentally under duress, and/or coerced to do things against her will?

Housegate: If someone's friends contribute significant amounts of time/materials/labor to helping you construct a valuable project, say a house...and if those contributors are professionals and/or own a company...and/or if those contributors then ''write-off'' their contribution somehow...Are you subject to ''GIFT'' taxes?

Lastly, is it possible for someone to setup a ''fund'' for people to contribute to to solicit conclusive evidence in this matter. Call it ''Palin Truth Fund''. A reward (totally amount of the funds receipts) could be give to whoever provides beyond a reasonable doubt the answer to this Riddle. I would and bet many many others would add $1 to this fund to find out. I'm sure we could resolve this question in short order.

Anonymous said...

I personally think this woman is seriously bizarre and this story is absolutely fascinating. However, I still think until we have more proof that she really just tried to cover up the fact that she was pregnant because she knew that she was on the short list for the VP nomination. She probably thought that they would drop her like a hot potato once they found out she was expecting.

I would like to know if she kept her other pregnacies such a secret. I saw a documentary on her during the elections (they did one of Obama/Biden/McCain/Palin) & the interviewed her sister & parents. Her sister said that she wasn't suprised at all that she kept it a secret. How very bizarre that she wouldn't have shared this with her sibs.

I also find it very amusing that the rest of her family members sound nothing like her. They also talk in complete sentences with no bizarre accent. Where did she pick that up?

At any rate please keep her away from the lower 48.

Thanks:)

Morgan said...

Anon,

According to Sarah Palin's own statements, she had an amnio at around 13 weeks. This picture was taken when she was around 33 weeks, about 20 weeks later.

That must have been one hell of a jab....

Anonymous said...

I find it difficult to believe the delivery of Trig Palin that includes a long flight from Texas to Alaska while leaking. Now it appears to me that every person that was in attendance of the event which Sarah spoke in Dallas, already knows whether she was pregnant that night or not. When I see Bristol with him, I see a loving mother, with Sarah it is always like she is carring a sack of flour or something. I do not believe it is Sarah's baby,what's even worst is that the Republicans are see her as some kind of Savior...what a pathetic group they are!

Alex said...

There can't be that many places selling fake-pregnancy puffs. What about contacting them and see if anything was sent to AK in March/April 2008. . .The later photo does look "realer."

Anonymous said...

Get over it. The race is over. Leave her alone!

Anonymous said...

I have been trying to find information on the gathering that Sarah spoke at in Dallas, Texas on the night that she gave birth, and I cannot find a thing but I am still looking! It is strange that she has not gone to work at the State Captitol since the campaigning, but she could not stay away 3 days after birthing her special needs child into the world...really strange!

MimiTabby said...

well, then there's this photo taken the same day
http://flickr.com/photos/65036937@N00/2416825845/in/set-72157604567129173/

no belly here either!

when I was pg with child #1 I was very small (but def looked pg at 7 months)
when I was pg with child #2, I was dramatically larger, as the walls of the abdomen had loosened from the first pregnancy. There's NO WAY a woman who's had 5 kids would have that trim figure a month (or 3) before delivery!

ajesquire said...

"When a late-stage pregnant woman bends forward, her protruding belly does not "fold" also. It is a large and whole entity as Audrey described--it cannot be pulled in or bound--just like wrapping a bungee cord around a watermelon will not succeed in compressing it"

The suggestion is not that SP may have been "sucking in her pregnant stomach" in the picture and therefore did not look as far along as she was.

The suggestion is that by hunching over/leaning forward, from a head-on perspective, her stomach could appear to not be protruding out as far as it was.

Also, I thought the fact that Sarah Palin "didn't look pregnant" even when she claimed to be very far along was undisputed. Even if we concede that this photo shows a woman who doesn't look pregnant, has that advanced the ball all that much?

I'd much rather have photographic evidence of Trig's actual biological mother appearing pregnant in Spring 2008.

jrp said...

There are those who say that Gov Sarah Palin,rather than her daughter, is surely Trig's mother because she would never be able to pull off such a monstrous deception, involving a seamless conspiracy. The skeptics are wrong and right. They are wrong in claiming that Palin is undoutedly the mother of Trig, but they are right in their contention that she would never be able to get away with it. Note that because of the efforts of Audrey, and others, Gov Palin has not succeeded in "getting away with it." Indeed, given the compelling evidence that points towards an ongoing deception, it is more difficult to claim Palin as Trig's mother than to do otherwise. If she is his mother, then a lot of things still make no sense but if she is not his mother then the picture becomes much clearer.

And now comes a photograph, which if it is not the "nail in the coffin" is damn well close to it. How to explain that flat corsetted belly if Palin really is Trig's mother? Whatever else one might say about the photograph it clearly doesn't depict a pregnant woman, 32/33 weeks along. Most women, if not all women, will demonstrably "show" at this advanced stage of pregnancy. Gov Palin isn't "showing" anything, except something like an elasticated wrapping, possibly part of a preganancy suit. If Palin was 32/33 weeks pregnant in that photograph, then the baby would have gone from almost nothing to something substantial in a mere 18 days. A ludicrous proposition.Most reasonable people will conclude that the only rational explanation is to credit Palin with deception.

Palin had the motive to lie (to protect her image as a "good Christian Mother"), she had the means of advancing the lie (her power as a governor), and she has failed to iron out the obvious wrinkles in her story (such as the ridiculous tale of going in and out of labor, almost at will, on the way home from the governor's conference in Texas). Palin has been caught out in her deception; and, for all we know, she might have gotten away with it if she had just remained an Alaska politician. Ambition is her Achilles heel...

One aspect of Palin's behavior that has always struck me as peculiar is her failure to provide hard evidence to halt what must be disturbing rumors. I know that if my paternity/maternity were questioned with regard to a child of my own, I would immediately do all I could to dispell the insulting rumors. Palin has not done this because she is clearly unable to. She convinces as Trig's adoptive mother (and that is business of the Palin family), but she is not in the least credible as his birth mother. If only she hadn't lied...

If Palin were a sympathetic figure, one might even see in all this the ring of Greek tragedy.


Perhaps the true tragic figure is Bristol, a "mother" who has been rendered into a "sister."

Anonymous said...

Can someone just please ask the person who took the picture if she had a belly, already?!

Sheesh.... ;-)

Anonymous said...

Audrey, I have been reading with fascination for months. I have never commented on any blog, ever. I feel compelled to remark on your absolutely excellent, rational sleuthing on this matter. Please don't quit. The truth is out there somewhere.For SP to attempt to pull this off indicates to me that her ambition is nothing short of pathological. 2012 will be here before we know it. Sp is dangerous! I believe the most recent photos are one more nail but probably not THE nail that the MSM would require. Some one suggested a fund to support the research exposing this sociopathic woman. I, for one, would be happy to contribute.

Anonymous said...

just saw the video. High School History Teacher Christy Jermaine was speaking and it appeared standing just behind Palin.

Has anyone asked her to comment off/on the record?

Heh heh, I did noticed she didn't stand up during the segment airing, but I'd assume that's just edited copy. I'll bet the cameraman has more footage of her moving around (at least standing up and sitting down at the table, but probably alot more).

Anonymous said...

A quick note to the person who thought the darker patch was a shadow from the flash -- there is a shadow from the flash visible in the picture, but it is a very narrow black line along the edge of the jacket -- easily visible in the blow-up. The larger dark "patch" is not a shadow from the flash. (I actually found it easier to see the tonalities of the picture well, especially the "pad," by pasting it into a word document.)

Anonymous said...

Now, I know Levi Johnston needs some money. Let's pay him to talk. Now that Palin is not VP, he is probably out of danger...and may have no intention to marry.

Anyways, the cou rouge, as he calls himself, may be just as ambitious as Palin and want a book deal or to move out of Alaska or at least out on his own.

Well, let him tell his story. Anyone have talk show money and/or connections?

Anonymous said...

Forgive me for a long post. I have spent way too much time over the past several months seeking and poring over information about Sarah Palin. After going through all the information that I can find, here and elsewhere, I have come to the conclusions that:

Bristol and Levi are Trig’s parents, because:
•they act toward Trig as if he is their son
•Bristol looks like a breast-feeding mom at RNC; the photos of her with what looks like a balloon under her dress are otherwise inexplicable
•Trig looks like Levi – see pictures at the RNC
•Mercedes’ photos and captions make clear that she considers Bristol to be her sister-in-law and Trig to be closely related to her
oBristol looks tired but beaming in the photo of her with Trig and Mercedes
oMercedes calls this photo “family love” – not a caption she would use if they were unrelated to her
•Other less conclusive evidence, regarding the absence from school, supports this conclusion but is less definitive
oReports and rumors indicated that Bristol was pregnant, even before Sarah announced her pregnancy; and Sarah had begun to defend against these rumors
oThe move to Anchorage for school in early 2008 is suspicious – to get Bristol away from Levi? To cover up her pregnancy?
oThe absence of Bristol from family events and photos is also suspicious
oThe prom photo that was taken on April 25th was originally seen as possible proof Bristol was not the mother – but it does not prove that at all
oThere is an unverified but interesting message from an unnamed source who claimed to work at Mat-Su, stating that it was Bristol who gave birth

Sarah is not Trig’s mom, because:
•The March 26th photos are definitely not of a ~33-week pregnant woman; to argue otherwise is uninformed or delusional
•She didn’t look at all pregnant in numerous photos when she was allegedly 7-months pregnant, which for someone of slender build is not credible
oThe photos of her hiking through Anchorage in early February suggest that the fake pregnancy ruse may not have been devised yet – not only her appearance and movements, but also drinking coffee, are not what you would expect from a well-known public figure who is pregnant with a special needs child
oMany other photos of her, from February and March, do not show a pregnant woman
•Even in April, her “pregnant” appearance varied greatly from day to day; and she didn’t seem pregnant in her movements and actions
•The leaking fluid-flight to Anchorage-birth at Mat-Su story is absolutely not credible (but may have been repeated based on Bristol leaking fluid – my speculation)
•Flight attendants were not aware that she was about to give birth --implausible
•The doctor’s note is strong countervailing evidence, and did cause me to seriously question my conclusion; but the letter appears to be carefully word-smithed to obscure rather than reveal the truth, and specifically fails to directly say Sarah is Trig’s birth mother
oThis letter took weeks to produce, indicating that it took a lot of effort to craft something that would say what they wanted and still be something the doctor could sign
oCBJ is beholden to Palin
oThe health records review was taking place at the same time that senior McCain aides called Palin a “whack job” and made other derogatory statements about her – perhaps (speculation) a result of the preposterous story she had constructed
•Sarah could have easily proven that she was Trig’s birth mother by producing the birth certificate or by other indisputable means, but chose not to and still will not do so
•Sarah had reason to cover up Bristol’s pregnancy (Bristol’s pregnancy would look bad in light of her own ambitions and position on abstinence and sex-ed; Sarah could come off as the supermom and hero); but she could not cover for Bristol twice
•She does not act toward Trig as the mother of an infant with special needs
•She shows no physical signs of being a nursing mom (but Bristol does)
•Sarah has lied about other things and cannot be considered trustworthy; perhaps, as others have speculated, she may have a personality disorder that leads her to take undue risks and/or to be in the limelight as much as possible – being supermom would play into that as well as burnish her ultra-right Christian credentials
•The Troopergate saga showed that she and her family would go to great lengths and scheme together to manipulate events

This is essentially a true-life case of “the emperor has no clothes” phenomenon. Just because Sarah Palin says something, we are all expected to ignore what we can see with our own eyes and figure out with our own common sense, and instead accept her implausible story. This might have worked if the story had stayed in the realm of Alaskan politics, but once Sarah stepped into the national limelight, her fraud could not remain unchallenged.

I acknowledge that there is a certain amount of speculation that leads me to this conclusion, but after considering the alternative possibilities, this is the most likely explanation for the evidence we have. It is far more reasonable than Sarah’s story, which is based on many unlikely and incredible suppositions, and requires too much suspension of disbelief and common sense. I can accept one oddity and sometimes even two, but her story has too many things that don’t add up. The preponderance of the credible evidence is that Bristol and Levi are Trig’s birth-parents.
--Truthseeker

Anonymous said...

I'm impressed with your detective work. Only somebody who has no experience with a pregnant women could conclude that was any question that Palin is clearly not pregnant in this photo. She looks pudgy and out of shape in the stomach but certainly not pregnant, unless it was before the stage when few women show, under 20 weeks. The growth in the next photo is just not possible. Women go from not showing to clearly showing pregnant during the second trimester, unless they are starving themselves and the baby is way undersized, which Trig certainly wasn't. I worked in admitting in the maternity ward of a hospital for years, and have seen many women in all stages of pregnancy and never have I seen a woman, that far along who didn't look pregnant unless she was heavy enough that the increased baby size was too small a percentage of body size to be notible. The thinner a women is, the more noticible the pregnancy. I was very thin when I got pregnant and my belly stood way out from my body. I had strangers telling me all the time they couldn't imagine I could get any bigger when I was only 7 months along.

I assume that the reason that no medical records are forthcoming is because nobody is willing to create a false set of records for her pregnancy and delievery. All the theories that Palin is hiding something in them is silly. It would be very easy to leave out anything she didn't want released, but not so easy to provide records that never existed.

Anonymous said...

I think this photo has CLEARLY been Photoshopped. Look at the bottom of her shirt. If this were the original photo, there would be a clearly-delineated line. Notice how blurry the edge of the fabric is. That doesn't happen in real life. This is an example of amateur Photoshopping.
That being said, I am with you in having serious doubts that Palin is Trig's biological mother.
Keep trying....

Don Frey said...

Get over it!

Morgan said...

I work a lot with Photoshop and the photo clearly has not.

If it were, why on earth would someone Photoshop it and then leave it up on an obscure Flickr account waiting for it to be discovered AFTER the election?
Someone who put that kind of work into doctoring a photo would surely want it to get out prior to the election, wouldn't you think?

Anonymous said...

Jeanie @10:22, Thanks, you are certainly right. Only a hysterectomy would be permanent, and I doubt that she would have gone that far.--FishEye

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Audrey, for allowing us to see what the "opposition" is saying. Most of them do not scare me because I don't think they are connected enough (to reality) to be voters. I do think that we have to focus on the real problem which is to prevent SP from ever getting as close to the Presidency as she was.

Who is Trig's mother is not important in itself except to the Palin family. The exposure of SP's ability to deceive is what is important.

I have followed politics for a long time and have seen that when apathy sets in, some small group will squeeze in and take over. We must realize that ignoring the political system sets us up for demagoguery.

The best chances we have now are to pull together with the new governmental leaders, and, even though I am a life long Democrat, I believe the Republican party must return to its former strengths. We have lost a rational conservative voice in our discussions.

Keep rational thought alive!

sandra in oregon

Anonymous said...

This is wonderful and another nail for sure. Thank you Audrey for your persistence and dedication in search of the truth.

For those who question why no one will come out and talk and say that Trig is not Sarah's baby-- Remember these same people are not coming forward and saying publicly that he (Trig) is Sarah's and not Bristol's or someone else's baby.

The naysayers to the evidence do not offer up anything concrete in order to dispel the evidence. That is pretty odd.
The doctor doesn't talk, Sarah won't hand over the real records, Levi quits school, just when he most is going to need at least a high school degree and goes off to work on the slopes without his pregnant bride to be. None of Bristol's pals are talking either, one way or the other.
What about Sarah and Todd' close friends and relatives? Have any of them actually come out and said yes I personally know Sarah was pregnant with Trig and etc. Except for Anne Kilkenny's letter. Funny her husbands last name is Johnson. That may be a coincidence but that letter sounds contrived for one reason. To stop the Trig rumors. Not to spend to much time on that but she is real was vetted by the NY times.
That is what is odd, that no one speaks up at all, this reeks of a coverup.
The only defense that those who believe Sarah is to insult those who question what we have been handed here and they just don't offer up credible evidence. Sarah could do that and exonerate herself and have one hell of a career, at least a much easier path. By proving the truth she stands by.
All shall be revealed.

Anonymous said...

I think the Alaskan Airlines attendants' comment that they couldn't tell she was pregnant is the smoking gun.

Now, using only that last photo where she looks about to burst as the only photo that matters, consider the following:

1) On any flight I've been on, flight attendants walk up and down the aisle before take-off to ensure seatbelts are fastened.

2) A pregnant belly would have the seat belt fastened UNDERNEATH it and across the lap NOT over the the top of it.

3) Flight attendant(s) would have stopped to ensure her seatbelt was fastened since they obviously wouldn't have been able to see it. Even if they could see it, they certaiinly would have noticed the her belly.

4) I mean really, was she sitting alone or next to another non pregnant person? Cabin seats are small and tight (even in business class) and a fat person is noticeable sitting next to a skinny person. Think about it.

Anonymous said...

I only just found this site through mudflats and I'm very grateful that you are continuing to follow the baby Trig deception. I believe eventually, the truth will become undeniable.

However, unlike many posters, I do not wish to see this story be exposed in order to disparage Sarah Palin. I believe she did what many mothers would do for their daughter in a similar circumstance, long before there would have been expected any public scrutiny.

For me the real significance of this deception is why it was ignored in the desperate, reprehensible, feckless and irresponsible eagerness of the McCain campaign to find an attractive VP candidate - who was chosen because she would appeal to the worst, most culturally divisive element of the Republican base.

That question is where the important issues lie. Exposing the hypocricy of, among other standards, abstinence only education (didn't Sarah herself skip a wedding and give birth 8 months following her marriage?) is part of a larger strategy of exposing the bankruptcy - in the most literal way! - of phony "conservative" values politics.

Anonymous said...

How about this photo? I just can't get past it for sure. You have to lighten it and then it all stands out that she is completely flat bellied in it on March 14th. Maybe I need to get some of those magic scarves she has been wearing.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/345168.html

Anonymous said...

I teach digital photography and Photoshop, and I see no evidence of tampering in the picture. I think that must be a Palin troll who said there is clear evidence of tampering.

Brad S

Anonymous said...

I wish I did believe this were the final nail but I just think the photo looks doctored. It looks like someone took the edge of a big stomach and moved it in. The thing that looks especially weird to me in the length of the crotch area up to the waist. That looks awfully long. And when I look at the zoomed image I think I see the rubbing effect you can do in Photoshop.

I really want her to be revealed as a liar because she is dangerous. But I simply don't think this is the piece to do it.

I am sorry that I am belittling your efforts, Audrey.

Jennifer

Morgan said...

Thank you, Brad. I don't teach Photoshop but I use it often and am familiar with all the tools. I looked at this very closely.

Anyone who examines this photo and claims it's been Photoshopped doesn't know what they're talking about.

Anonymous said...

Twodot (December 3, 2008 9:33 AM)...now that you mention it....after looking at your inverted/negative of the Sarah Palin 3/27/08 picture...

It looks like she's wearing a pad that extends from just under her bra line straight down her body to just above her pubis (which appearance accounts for the cracks from some wiseguy/gal about her "equipment"). The pad appears to be fairly stiff or rigid, allowing a straight-down line without indentation for a non-pregnant woman's normal waistline.

RE: Palin looking chubbier in spring 2008 than in September 2008? It was noted in some article in September or October that she was subsisting on diet Dr. Pepper and Slim-Fast for a while.

This was attributed to her spending hours "cramming" for her talking points, but I'd say it was as much or more because she didn't quite fit those haute couture clothes the RNC bought for her.

Karen, OR

tm68 said...

I am totally with you on this and I asked this question on another thread of yours. It's the one thing blowing my mind. If, indeed, Trig is Bristol's- why in the hell would she go and get prenant again so soon after his birth? What are the theories for that one? It just doesn't make any sense that a teenager- given a "pass" for a screw up like a teen pregnancy by having mom claim him as her own- would do that! And I am coming at this from the angle that I know this teen personally. I was her teacher in middle school. I'm dying to contact her and just ask her flat out, but it's been a few years since I've seen her. The last time I saw her was a couple of years ago at a local restaurant.

Anonymous said...

This is supposedly Palins FOURTH kid. Remember the picture of her during her FIRST pregnancy, http://i33.tinypic.com/mt70d4.jpg ? Usually, women get BIGGER with each pregnancy, not SMALLER!

One more thing: As every woman knows who has been preggo: When you are about 8 months preggo, your bellybutton starts to pop out. I assume it would happen earlier once you have had a couple of kids...

jeanie said...

Grammy almost had me doubting there for a minute with her statement to the effect that Sarah is holding an ace up her sleeve, and will pull it out at an opportune moment to make her "detractors" (actually, I'd prefer to think of us as logical and scientific) seem foolish.

That passed after a second, though. What better place to pull out that ace than towards the end of a campaign which, if it had gone a different way, could have given her probably an even shot at becoming our president (shudder!)?

Occam's razor is a philosophical rule that basically says that the simplest explanation for something is most likely the correct one. The concise summary from Anonymous at 3:28 (and of course this whole website!) gives conclusive evidence that Bristol being Trig's mom is by far the simplest way to explain all of the information we have seen so far.

Anonymous said...

OK, some people are asking why Palin would fake a pregnancy before being in the limelight...
My attempt at a possible reason: IF Trig is actually Bristol's kid and not Sarahs, then he would not be covered under any insurance. Sarah faked the pregnancy because she knew it would be impossible for Bristol, a highschool dropout, to afford insurance for him.

Anonymous said...

One more thing re. the heavy coat SP is wearing all the time. I don't know about other ladies who have had a baby, bu I remember when I was pregnant, I felt like an oven, and did NOT need a jacket or coat when others DID. Something about the extra blood supply cursing through your veins that make you feel hotter than usual, I guess.

Gadfly said...

Hey, something else... is that a Penthouse Pet key she's wearing on that chain?

Anonymous said...

The photographer has confirmed that she was present on the 26th March 2008 and took the photographs herself.

http://flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3068746423/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3079897851/

Kathleen on behalf of Patrick

Anonymous said...

Gadfly. No. It is the key to her chastity belt.....

Kathleen

hrh said...

tm68: Bristol is not pregnant now, most likely. General thinking is that the rethug spinners claim this to dispel the idea that Bristol could not be Trig's mother because she had gotten pregnant a little before Trig's birth.

If, indeed, Bristol is pregnant, then Trig was born quite some time before they say he was.

How they'll handle the "birth" later this month is anybody's guess!

Audrey said...

I agree the picture of Nicole Kidman is impressive. But even with that photo there is a sense of tightness, or roundness. That there's something significant or substantial there. In this photo of Palin, you don't get that feeling whatsoever. I know I will probably get slammed for talking about "feelings" and photos, but that's what I see when I look at this.

I assert that if we'd put this exact outfit on Kidman and photographed her in exactly the same position, you'd see a belly. A small one, but a very definite round tight pregnancy.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but was that not Kidman's first pregnancy? I was not this small with my first (oh so many years ago) but I remember not showing much at all until I was around 6-7 months. I can remember being disappointed that I could not "fit into" the maternity clothes my mother had bought me because they were just stupidly big.

This was Palin's supposed fifth pregnancy at age 44. Big difference.

Tina in CA said...

Anon @ 7:06

I was thinking the same thing about the belly button. The shirt is so tight....the button should sure be popping!

Anonymous said...

If you look at the main picture in its largest size, the position of the little girl places some bound on how big Sarah can be:

See the little black background triangle above the girl's right shoulder,i.e., bounded by,from back to front:

Sarah's arm
girl's shoulder (in between)
Sarah's coat front

Now, sketch where the girl's arm and shoulder are. IT looks like her arm is vertical and close to Sarah for its length.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen Bristol lately? I am just wondering, because she dropped out of sight soon after the repub convention... She 'should' be huge by now, IF she is really pregnant.
I wonder if they are simply faking her pregnancy, keeping her out of sight, and then, one of these days soon, they will claim she had a stillbirth. Like that, they would not have to show any pictures...

Anonymous said...

To those who have followed this blog and have concluded that Sarah is probably Trig's mother --

I have been thinking about this issue a lot, obviously, and I was considering it again, in light of this new evidence, in my Philosophy class this morning. Using a philosophical tool we discussed today in that class, I've concluded that, though we can't yet be positive that Trig is in fact Bristol's kid, we can't give up the search for new evidence.

Think about it this way: if we believe Trig is Sarah's, we must be either right or wrong. If we're right, we neither gain or lose anything. If we're wrong, we've lost the chance to cripple the political career of a truly dangerous person. Or, if we believe Trig is NOT Sarah's, we're again either right or wrong. If we're right, and we keep looking for new clues, we may have found a way to stop this woman from seeking higher political office. If we're wrong, we lose nothing except time.

Thus, it is ALWAYS logically better to believe Trig is NOT Sarah's child and to keep searching for clues.

Emily said...

Audrey, this was Kidman's first full term pregnancy.

While married to Cruise she had at least one ectopic pregnancy and several miscarriages.

So, yes....I maintain that Kidman doesn't actually look as unhealthy as people think...compare a pic of her pre-pregnancy to that picture, and you will see a substantial increase in belly and butt!

Colleen said...

It is entirely feasible that Bristol could be pregnant again even after being bailed out by her mother for her first pregnancy.

I was nursing exclusively and had not yet had a period after the birth of my second child. I was totally freaked out to find that I was pregnant only 7 months after giving birth. I really thought you couldn't get pregnant under those circumstances. Bristol was probably eager to get back to "normal" after Trig was born and probably thought she couldn't get pregnant so soon.

On another note...I gave birth to my fifth child at age 40... 9 years after giving birth to my 4th child. Let me tell you, having a baby at 40 was a totally different experience...I think that because my metabolism had slowed due to age, I gained much more weight with the fifth pregnancy than any other (50 lbs. vs. 28-32lbs). I was huge and I looked tired all the time. I was in great shape before the last pregnancy- with tight abs I might add, but I was in maternity clothes in my fourth month, and there was no question that I was pregnant!! Look at the 1989 photo of Sarah "with child"...she was a WHALE! There is no way...no way that she could hide a fifth pregnancy for 7 months.

Anonymous said...

lots of things will become clear if/when Bristol has a youngin' in the next month or so.

Anonymous said...

In response to Bristol's former middle school teacher, the possible reasons why Bristol might have gotten pregnant again, immediately, include: no sex ed; abstinence only doesn't work; Bristol & Levi allegedly kept apart for months to "cool it" between them were making up for lost time; raging hormones; spite; wanting to have a child they could raise as their own. I would love for you to ask Bristol what is going on; but it would surprise me if she would (could) tell the truth.

tullyxred said...

To tm68 and hrh,
I believe, as Audrey does, that Bristol is indeed pregnant, just not far enough along to preclude her giving birth to Trig. Seems crazy on her (and Levi's) part, but remember we are talking about teenagers. Their frontal lobes are not fully developed, hence they don't always make rational decisions or adequately consider the consequences of their decisions. Plus, they may have been operating under some common misinformation, i.e. that Bristol couldn't get pregnant while nursing or before she got her period back. She may have unconsciously (or consciously) wanted to get pregnant again to make up for the loss of Trig. I think she is known to have a rebellious streak.

KM said...

The best evidence that Palin is lying about Trig still boils down to two key points.
1. She lies constantly and about things that are easily documented as lies. "I said 'yes' without blinking." "I asked my daughters first." "I asked my husband first." Two of the three statements she made about her response to McCain have to be lies.
2. The sheer outrageousness of the story she told about Trig's birth. That story simply isn't true. She could have just said she had the baby hours after returning from Texas. But that didn't fit with her style of constant self mythologizing. She needed to tell as story that made her seem wildly heroic. As usual it just made her look crazy.

g said...

While I find this all intriguing, I disagree this is the key to defeating Palin. This discussion is beginning to remind me of the Right Wing nuts speculating over Obama's birth certificate.

Can't we focus on defeating Palin for her corruption and incompetence at governing? Isn't that enough?

Jen said...

to: g

g said...
While I find this all intriguing, I disagree this is the key to defeating Palin. This discussion is beginning to remind me of the Right Wing nuts speculating over Obama's birth certificate.

Can't we focus on defeating Palin for her corruption and incompetence at governing? Isn't that enough?


-----------

uh because this may be corruption... that's why. abuse of power, using her influence and power to get a doctor or doctors to lie, fake birth certificates, insurance fraud, tax fraud... if she's capable of lying about this, she's capable of lying about everything else...

if you're not familiar with former Senator George Allen of Va, who uttered the infamous word 'maccaca' during the 2006 election, he is a good example.

Everything that was said about him before, wouldn't stick... it was dismissed as heresay, rumors, old news, etc... but when he said maccaca on video tape to the camera and the kid holding it, it made everything else said about him believable.

when enough photographic evidence appears for the public to see, someone will start to worry and they may talk...

look at what the national enquirer got john edwards to admit and their pics were fake!

and it's usually the coverup that is worse than the original "crime"... so no, we will not be giving up to go after some other ambiguous charge against her, because this is what SHE choose to reveal about herself.

Anonymous said...

To me, every lie Palin tells is an example of her "corruption." There are plenty of websites devoted to her other problems-- why would anyone advocate a change to this site, which has focused on this particular issue since its inception?

And to the Palinites who want us to leave Sarah alone-- I'll leave her alone when she leaves ME alone by ceasing to threaten the future of my country with her political presence.

hrh said...

g at 6:45am:

No, it isn't enough. The real possibilities of the damage this monstrous woman could do is terrifying, at least, to me. We need to do EVERYTHING we can to discredit her.

IMO, equating what we're talking about here and Obama's birth certificate is not valid. Not the same at all.

We know the birth certificate matter is a manufactured issue with nothing to substantiate it. Palin's "pregnancy," OTOH, is a genuine matter and has huge implications for the future. Our future.

tullyxred said...

Forgive me if there's a lot blogged on this already -- But, is there any concrete evidence that Trig has Down Syndrome? Information from SP has been contradictory and convoluted. I read some speculation somewhere about the possibility of Trig having Fetal Alcohol Syndrome rather than DS. Both are among the most common of birth defects. Any expertise out there among the bloggers? I think one of the reasons that many folks, including some of the MSM, backed off this story originally is that it seemed much more plausible that Sarah in her forties birthed a child with DS than Bristol in her teens.

Anonymous said...

The poster named "g" makes a very reasonable comment suggesting that some folks on this blog seem obsessed, and that the key to defeating Palin in the future is to focus on her shortcomings relative to official duties.

I plead "guilty" to that charge. Finding the truth in the "Who Is Trig's Mother" puzzle has become an end in itself for me - kind of like playing Where's Waldo. I am an avid reader of mysteries, and the pleasure I get from the sleuthing on this site is akin to reading a good whodunit. But I don't feel a need to apologize, since the end result of our efforts here is likely to help bring out the truth and to serve the greater good.
Brad S

Anonymous said...

Regarding the proof that the picture was taken on 26 March 2008, please look at the description (and the comment!) of this picture - every information you will need regarding the date, you will there...links to the photo and video evidence, and the statement of the flickr-user "surfdaf" herself that the picture was taken on 26 March 2008!

Here is the link:

flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3068746423/

Patrick

Anonymous said...

I have taken the original picture and manipulated it in photoshop...here:

http://flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3081747947/

...changing contrast and brightness. I have done that in order to show that there is a very suspicious, square shaped "pad" on Sarah's belly. Everybody is invited to do the same. What IS this thing on Sarah's belly? Can this be some form of padding to make her belly look larger? You decide.

The original picture can be found here:

www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3068746423/

Anonymous said...

And let's not forget:

THAT was how Sarah Palin looked like on 14th March 2008, just about two weeks earlier than our "nail in the coffin picture":

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3041250553/sizes/o/

There, the belly is as flat as an ironing board!

;-)

Patrick

Anonymous said...

Good work on revealing that pad. Look at the right hand side of it. Isn't it tapered and rounded toward the bottom? Like a phony pregnancy pad that has slipped out of place.

Anonymous said...

Governor Palin was pregnant with Trig. This is so stupid that you would even take the time to write all of this GARBAGE. Sarah Palin has confirmed in numerous interviews that Trig is HER BABY. All of you need to get a life, seriously. It's really sad that you focus on something so silly. Governor Palin is a woman who should be respected. She is courageous enough and humble enough to not make a big deal out of these rumors. She is honest, sincere, trustworthy, kind, caring, faithful, and so much more. I suggest that you all move on now. Sarah Palin was in deed pregnant with Trig Palin. Get over it. Maybe you're all like Sarah said in an interview once: "...in pajamas, living in their parents' basement, with nothing better to do..."

GraceR said...

Colleen, I'll have to say that I had the opposite experience from you. I had my first child in my 20's; I gained 57 lbs. (had toxemia at the end), and couldn't get back to wearing my own clothes after he was born for at least 4 mos. At age 42 I found myself pregnant for the 4th time; this was unplanned and my 3rd child was 11 at the time. To put it mildly, I was not happy and am ashamed to admit that I resented being pregnant. I had run 2 marathons and was training for the big one, the NYC Marathon, at the time. I foolishly continued to train very hard, even going to Gold's 5 days a week, until the doctor ordered me not to run anymore later in the pregnancy. I also continued a very restrictive diet, which I know was stupid but I was not thinking clearly at the time. I ended up gaining 18 lbs. and really didn't show much until the end (there are no pictures taken of this unhappy pregnant woman and I can't remember exactly when I did show), then suddenly it seemed like I was REALLY showing. Thankfully, my son was born healthy although over 3 weeks early (probably because of my irresponsible actions) at 6.6 lbs. (as opposed to my first who weighed 8lbs. 14 oz. and the other 2 who also weighed nearly 9 lbs.). I was back to wearing my regular clothes in 3 days. Now, had I not been training so hard and severely restricting my caloric intake, I may well have gotten much bigger than I had with my other kids, as I was not even into running when I had them.

Anonymous said...

re tullyxred and whether Trig has Down Syndrome or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

One of the symptoms of FAS is the absence of a philtrum, that groove between the nose and the upper lip. Pictures of Trig show an obvious philtrum.

Although the chances of having a DS baby increase as the mother's age increases, over 50% of DS babies are born to mothers under 30 years of age simply because more babies are born to mothers under 30 years.

palinoscopy said...

tullyxred - FAS and Downs do share a few similar physical traits. But that would really add a complication to the mix, as it would also require someone in this picture to be a complete lush. FAS isn't the result of some partying during pregnancy, but of full scale alcoholism. Michael Dorris's book "The Broken Cord," explores FAS, if you're interested.

hrh said...

Fascinating what Anonymous at 8:48a has done with the photo.

Reminds me of a similar process used by someone to show that Bush was wired during one of his debates (with Kerry, I believe). Adjusting the brightness and contrast clearly brought out the presence of a rectangular box in the middle of Bush's back under his jacket that was only barely visible under normal lighting.

Nice work, Anonymous at 8:48a!

Anonymous said...

Has anyone considered that Palin may be covering up for her sister (again) and that Molly Heath McCann Wooten McCann Hackett might be Trig's mother? She just turned 43 and would be more likely than Bristol to give birth to a Downs Syndrome baby. Just a thought.

jeanie said...

hrh says: "...general thinking is that this (Bristol's supposed current pregnancy) is to dispute the claim that Trig is Bristol's"

I agree, and for another reason, too. Under an OB/Gyn exam, Bristol (assuming she did have Trig) will show physical signs of having given birth. Might as well kill two birds with one stone and 'give' her a pregnancy, so that her physical condition agrees with her supposed history. Maybe that's over-thinking the reasoning of the time, as patient records are confidential, anyhow. But it is a convenient way to provide an explanation for Bristol clearly (to a physician, at least) having given birth at some point in her life.

jeanie said...

The photo of Anonymous at 8:48 is really well-enhanced. I googled briefly for products, and the one here seems a reasonable candidate:

http://www.walgreens.com/store/product.jsp?CATID=306292&navAction=jump&navCount=0&skuid=sku2642641&id=prod2643204

Who knows exactly how this would work with a pad or something, but there is even a little white tab underneath the square. And (pardon me) Sarah would have nothing to prevent the square from rotating to the center a bit more...

hrh said...

Anonymous at 9:36a writes, "Sarah Palin has confirmed in numerous interviews that Trig is HER BABY."

There ya have it, folks. What more could you nutty people possibly want? Straight from SP, her very ueber-Christian self. We know what a paragon of virtue she is; she would never, NEVER lie to us. Sheesh!

Oh, wait...............Never mind.

BTW, what flavor Kool-Aid are you drinking this month, Anonymous at 9:36a?

Crockhead said...

I'm getting a little confused here. So, what's the theory -- that the photo is "the nail in the coffin" because it shows that Palin did not look pregnant in March, 2008, shortly before she supposedly gave birth; or that the photo reveals a pad with a band to make her look pregnant? I realize that conspiracy theorists don't have to be consistent, but this is getting ridiculous. I think we can all agree that Palin is so stupid that her election as vice president would have been dangerous for the country. This stuff only goes to show that her detractors may be as stupid as she is.

Anonymous said...

You know nothing of Alaskan culture. Most of us wear our coats indoors, if we are not planning on staying long. Our coats are worn shopping, at hockey games and other social events because we wear them often. Also why would the good Governor fake her public appearances here long before her announcement to the ticket.
She makes nightly news often and we were all aware of the pregnancy and my buddy is personal friends of Todd. He spoke of the pregnancy. You have nothing here but your 15 minutes of fame. Enjoy it while you can.

Anonymous said...

Nail in the coffin my foot.

First off, she's clearly stooping over a little to be photographed with her face closer to the Tlingit girl. Her jacket drapes off her shoulders and is barely pushed out by her left breast. The angle of her body tells us nothing in this photograph.

She was pregnant. Period.

You want proof? Here it is: the Alaska Podcast dated February 20th, 2008 (so shot either January or February).

http://alaskapodshow.com/index.php/2008/02/20/my-visit-to-juneau-alaska/#comments

Pay close attention the following reel times:
4:26-27 - There's clearly a slight, distinct baby bump pressing into her rain jacket.

6:36+ - As she clasps her hands and talks in her office not ONCE does her rain jacket drape straight down off her breasts. There's always an angle out over her abdomen suggesting something protruding under.

Add to that the fact that an eyewitness to the event photographed commented on the referenced flickr page that she is experienced with ob/gyn, heard Palin was pregnant and never suspected otherwise during the event.

She was pregnant, though admittedly I hope for the baby's sake her coffee was decaf.

Q.E.D.

Anonymous said...

Either you have way too much time on your hands, or you're an idiot. Who cares! She looks pregnant to me, plus women carry babies differently.
Come on.....

Keith said...

Hi! Interesting reading. Still, not a nail in the coffin. The main thing that makes us curious is all the drama that Palin creates. Beyond the pregnancy, I believe there are other issues that have prevented the release of medical records; i.e. mood altering prescription drugs such as Ativan, Zoloft, Paxil; marriage & birthdates; abortion, etc. My experience with extreme religious right people is they often have some negative life event that caused them to search for relief from the daily world. As we've learned from "The Candidate" movie, these personal issues should be off limits during campaigns. However, when you portray yourself to be someone who you're not, that's an issue American's need to known about in a candidate. Back on topic. . . Surely someone knows someone at the museum for history week can verify pregnant or not pregnant. The name of the teacher from the high school group was provided. I saw two other adults in the video who must be museum employees. Someone who lives in Juneau can verify with any of these people.

Anonymous said...

To QED, (Anonymous @1:30 p.m., 12/4)

Please take a look at the entire site before you post your angry refutations. Audrey has answered your specific points about that event long, long ago. http://www.palindeception.com/subpages/premarch.html

Leonard said...

Trig's Downs Syndrome makes me think Palin is his mother. But, I suspect Palin cared more for her own vanity and whims than her baby. I believe she didn't really want Trig, maybe due to his disability so, being anti-abortion, just figured "screw it". I think she bound her stomach out of vanity and carried on doing whatever she felt like, not caring if it caused a miscarriage, and maybe even hoping it would.

Eva said...

Wow, the three posters between 12:53 and 1:30 seem so angry… why? If there is no basis to what everyone is discussing on the blog then what’s the big deal? Why are you here and posting if this is not a valid issue to be discussed?


The anonymous poster at 1:30 asks “You want proof?” Oh my god that is so funny – yes we want proof, please give us the proof!!

Anonymous said...

You have proof! His "buddy is personal friends of Todd." Anyone who has such a command of grammar can't help but be right.

Anonymous said...

Uh, actually Mr Q.E.D. at 1:30 pm, her jacket DOES go in at time 8:30 to reveal a totally flat stomach.

Anonymous said...

Crockhead --
The theory is both, really, and, yes, we are being consistent. Palin does not look pregnant in the picture. She does, however, look like she's wearing some kind of pad intended to make her look pregnant. She failed, though, in this, both because of the size and shape of the pad she used. It's the "nail in the coffin" because it's a picture of her looking un-pregnant but like she's trying to fake s pregnancy.

Anonymous said...

The picture of the pregnancy on April 13, especially the side shot with the woman newscaster, seems not only very much larger than the one on March 26, it also seems to be riding much lower which would indicate late term. She should have known that birth was imminent (as on 4/18). This would have been an indication that the announced EDC was incorrect. After all, she considered herself an expert on labor.

sandra in oregon

Andrew said...

Great work! You have brought navel-gazing to inspiring new levels.

I don't know if you heard, but McCain-Palin lost the election, your scandal hunting is irrelevant. So maybe in your quest for birth certificates, you could focus some attention on the Messiah of Broken Promises, Uhhhhbamah.

Anonymous said...

Also, regarding the April 13 picture in which she actually looks pregnant (I guess she found a higher quality pregnancy simulator), what about the inconsistency that she claimed that she was so small that the flight attendants didn't realize she was pregnant?

Anonymous said...

Andrew, at 4:43, 12/4, wants us to turn our attention to Obama's birth certificate--which anyone who looks at factcheck.org or snopes.com can see is verified and legally certified as real by the State of Hawaii (nutjob nuisance lawsuits won't yield anything different).

That's the problem, Andrew. Your ad hominem attacks, and your inability to defend your point of view (e.g. proving that Palin doesn't lie) combined with your distraction strategy of saying, "Look, over there!" won't fly here. If you have an explanation of Palin's birth saga in April, let's hear it, please. Give us facts.- Mark

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 4:47 pm :

If I remember right, the article describing the dramatic flight(s) back to alaska was actually very carefully worded and stated that "Governor Palin's condition was not apparent to the flight attendants."

So "condition" could either mean the condition of being pregnant, or the condition of being in labor.
It is impossible to tell from the context.

BUT it would be very risky to use a 'Preggers Pillow'
if there was any chance of being patted down while going through security . . . of course it would be equally risky not to ! Maybe governors just don't get subjected to searches.

The article did go on to say something to the effect that the governor was pleasant and cheerful throughout the flights . . . hmmm. . . .

For those of you who are dissing this discussion, HELLO ! All Sarah has to do is release Trig's birth certificate ! And actually, unless born to a minor, birth certificates are supposed to matters of PUBLIC RECORD. Even my mother, who would never think anything bad of anyone, is wondering where Trig's birth certificate is . . .

Anonymous said...

Patrick at 9:01 am, Flickr told me that
OOPS, the photo you were looking for has
been deleted ! Wonder why that might be ?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 5:55:

No, the picture is still there and not deleted...

Or does somebody disagree? Is there a mistake of some sort?

Patrick

Anonymous said...

"You know nothing of Alaskan culture. Most of us wear our coats indoors, if we are not planning on staying long. Our coats are worn shopping, at hockey games and other social events because we wear them often."

Actually, some of us DO know about Alaskan culture because we lived there. I spent 8 years of my life there, living in Wasilla and Palmer. My father worked on the North Slope (aka Prudhoe Bay for those not familiar with Alaska) for most of his career before retiring.

In my experience, people in Alaska may or may not remove their coats if they're running in and out somewhere. Honestly, unless the weather was very, very cold, I would estimate that I saw just as many dash in and out of stores WITHOUT their coats. Heck, I was watching a program on TV last night about Barrow, Alaska (again for those not familiar with the state, the northernmost city in North America), and they had footage of some guy shoveling some pretty deep snow wearing jeans and a t-shirt.

But back to the ACTUAL event that took place that day in March 2008. This wasn't a quick trip to the store or a hockey game, now was it? No one else seems to be heavily outfitted in winter coats indoors. This was a professional indoor event that she was attending as the Governor of Alaska. We have plenty of footage and photos of her doing her "official duties" at indoor events sans heavy coat. The media was there on that day in March, including TV crews. No one else seems to be heavily attired in coats. So why was she?

Annie
former Alaskan, current Texan

Rhymes With Right said...

The problem with your argument is that it clashes with my actual experience of a co-worker's full-term pregnancy.

Becky was a rather athletic woman -- much like Palin.

For personal reasons (she was an unmarried school teacher), she chose not to disclose her pregnancy to anyone.

The first any of us at school (including her students) knew of the pregnancy was when we received an email informing us of the birth of her 7 pound baby.

If my former colleague could go full term without any significant "baby bump", so could other women -- including Gov. Palin.

Anonymous said...

And actually, unless born to a minor, birth certificates are supposed to matters of PUBLIC RECORD.

That is not true in Alaska. But of course, Sarah Palin could have released it by now if it said what she wanted it to say -- and she hasn't.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 256   Newer› Newest»