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
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.
Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez is the new DNC Chair. - Courtesy of NBC News: *After a difficult 2016 campaign that saw them lose in the White House, both chambers of Congress and in state houses across the c...
2 hours ago