Saturday, December 27, 2008

Photoshop Report

First, up front: I'll get this out of the way, so those who disagree with my decision can just stop reading now. I have agreed with the expert who did this report that I am not releasing his name publicly on this blog. He is fully aware that his name can and will be released to media personnel who make appropriate inquiries. He has a website which contains personal phone numbers as well as emails, and - based on what has occurred to others who have become involved in this story (which has included, in the case of at least one blogger who has posted on this publicly, emails to his employer demanding that he be fired) I have no problem agreeing with his request that he does not need to reveal himself to those who are simply malicious.

Second, I am making a commitment. If anyone disagrees with these results, he/she is free to hire another expert. I will be happy to post the results of another report on this blog, even if the results are sharply in disagreement with what the report that I was given.

Third, and I apologize for this, the report is in the form of a pdf. This is to protect the author of the report from having his work altered or plagiarised in any way. I realize it makes it a bit more difficult to read the report - you'll have to download it and open it on your own computer - but there's no way around this.

To review, I asked the expert to look at the following two photographs.

(Original caption from Flickr account: CBS 11 doing a live interview as the legislative session comes to an end. ) For the rest of this discussion, this is referred to as Image 1.

(Original caption from Flickr account: Myself, Governor Palin, Press Secretary McAllister. ) For the rest of this discussion, this is Image 2.

These photos were allegedly taken on April 13, 2008 in Juneau, less than one week prior to Trig Palin's birth.

Why is there so much focus on these photos? I think it's essential to review this briefly. Those who have supported Sarah Palin over the last four months, and who have insisted that there is "no doubt" that Sarah is Trig's mom in fact have very few pieces of "concrete proof." These two photos are two of only five known photos taken during the period of time during which she was said to have been pregnant (March 5, 2008 through April 18, 2008) in which there is an unobstructed view of her midsection. The other three are:

One, taken March 26th, which showed only very dubious evidence of pregnancy.
One, taken around April 8th, which shows a pregnant appearance. (However, I have asserted that the "belly," while certainly present, appears oddly flat, not "round and taut" as I would expect in a woman close to 35 weeks pregnant with her fifth child. In addition, screen shots from a video taken this same day show clear evidence of a square shape under her shirt.)
One, taken March 14th, which shows no evidence of pregnancy whatsoever.

These two photos - then - in my opinion - are the ONLY two which show her realistically pregnant. The belly is, in my opinion, rounded and quite natural-looking. And because of this, the photo of her being interviewed (Image 1) is pointed to again and again and again as proof-positive that she was pregnant with Trig. Just recently, on a website which supports Sarah Palin for president in 2012 ( there was a thread - now removed - which questioned the pregnancy. Like clockwork, someone posted this photo.

Frankly, without this ONE photo I personally believe that she would not have been able to "prove" the matter last August 31- September 1. This photo - along with the uncorroborated announcement that Bristol was "five months pregnant" - saved her candidacy. That's why this photo was - and continues to be - critical.

So ... without further ado, here's the link to the full pdf from the professional analysis. For those of you who want the result without having to wade through the analysis, here it is.

Image 1 (2814199887_67e84850f4_b.jpg) shows some signs of alterations consistent with an image that has been composited from different sources. However, due to the fact that the image available for analysis is only 1024 x 768, it is not possible to give a conclusive analysis.

Image 2 (2814979078_4815e908a9_b.jpg) shows no signs of alterations.

"Some signs of alterations." Admittedly, this is not proof positive. I concur that. But that the image shows any signs of alterations --- any signs at all --- should be very troubling considering that this is the single photograph that has been pointed to repeatedly as demonstrating that Sarah Palin is Trig's mom.

What are these signs of alterations? First, the area around her hair - a very common place to look for pixels that don't "match" in altered photos - shows signs of masking, a technique used when photos are composited. Second, as was pointed out in an earlier post on this blog, the area around her neck shows signs of adjustment - "a redundant pattern of murky pixels." Third, some discrepancy was noted in the area of the door that can be seen through her glasses, though if her glasses were clear and clean there should not have been a discrepancy. (However, to be precise, the expert felt that at 72 dpi, there was not enough detail say conclusively that this area had been altered: he calls it only an "area of interest.")

Fourth - and this was something that the expert brought up on his own (I had asked him only to look at the photos at the pixel level) in Image 1, Gov. Palin's body position seems, in his word, "peculiar." Many others have noted this. She is simply not facing where she should be if this picture is what it represents itself to be - a still shot of a news interview in progress. Even if, while Gusty was speaking, Palin's attention was drawn to something off camera and she glanced away, her body should still be facing the camera person squarely. But Palin's body is facing down the hall, quite nearly away from the cameraman, her expression almost unfocused. She does not appear in any way to be part of the action around her.

This report is not proof positive. It is not conclusive. But the main reason that is not is primarily because we do not have access to high-quality images from a known and reliable source from which solid conclusions can be drawn. What we have are low-resolution images taken by an unknown person uploaded anonymously to a Flickr account.

Considering all the other questions, concerns, and anomalies with this photo, that it shows any signs of alteration at all is profoundly troubling.

Here are just some of the questions surrounding the provenance of these photos ... and some comments on each.

1. This photo was released nowhere prior to Sarah Palin's candidacy being announced. While this is not per se a problem - lots of photos of Gov. Palin were no doubt released only after her VP nomination thrust her into the national spotlight - it is, in a word, unfortunate, that this most crucial picture was not seen anywhere prior to August 31, 2008.

2. The identity of the photographer is not known. Anyone who is willing to view these photos as "proof" should be at least slightly concerned that no one has ever been willing to publicly state who actually was behind the camera when the photos were taken.

3. The Flickr account holder is "Eric99559," and he/she has never been identified. In Image 2, the man to the left of the photo is Dan Carpenter, a photographer with KTUU - Channel 2 news (NBC Affiliate in Anchorage) , and the caption on the photo states that this person is "myself." This would lead one to assume that Eric99559 is Dan Carpenter. But this has never been confirmed.

4. The woman interviewing Gov. Palin in Image 1 is Andrea Gusty, a reporter with KTVA in Anchorage. She has gone on record as stating this photo was taken April 13th, a Sunday, which was the last day of the Alaska State Legislative Session. However, quite oddly, her account of the day (which is available for a fee on the KTVA website) is in conflict with the account published in the Anchorage Daily News the next day. Gusty's report states:
The halls are silent in our state Capitol after a bustling 90-day session wrapped up late Sunday night. More than 700 bills were introduced and less than half were voted on. Those that did make it are headed to the governor's desk for approval.
But according to the Anchorage Daily News, the session was adjourned "with time to spare," "at lunchtime," a fact that was met by considerable rejoicing from most legislators. This is not a minor difference, one person saying for example that it was over "at lunchtime," and another saying it was 1 PM. There is a huge difference between lunchtime and "late Sunday night." Was Gusty actually in Juneau on April 13th? If so, how could she confuse lunchtime and "late Sunday night?" Or was her written report uploaded to the KTVA website at a later time, and simply inserted with the date of April 14th into the sequence? Yet, archived video on the Anchorage Daily News site from KTVA on April 14th mentions that Gusty is in Juneau. I simply cannot understand how such an error could have been made.

5. Image 1 is a still photo of a news interview in progress. No actual video is now (or as far as I can tell after diligent research, ever has been) available.

6. The EXIF data on these two pictures, available openly on the Flickr account, show that these two photos were taken three minutes apart in 2005. Here is the EXIF data for Image 1. Here is the EXIF data for Image 2. Questions have been raised from the beginning about the incorrect date on these photos, with those skeptical of the idea that Palin may have faked the pregnancy insisting that the incorrect date is no big deal. The camera used was a mid range digital SLR. It cost around $700.00 when it was released, new, in 2005. Here's a page which is full of information about this camera. When it was released in 2005 it was a very nice, high end (9 megapixel) camera, a camera that would have been purchased by either a professional or a serious amateur. Here is what I have learned from conversations with two separate tech support people at Fuji:
There is no "default" date in this model camera (that the camera would reset to if the batteries died completely.) The first time the camera is turned on, the user must set a date. The camera will not work without this being done. After that point, the date is hard programmed into the hardware of the camera itself and even if the camera's battery dies completely is never lost. However, it can be changed by the user.
I find it extraordinarily odd that a professional grade camera used in what we are supposed to view as a professional interview environment has the wrong date, since there are only two ways this could happen with this particular camera. Either the date was set wrong when the camera was initially turned on OR the date was intentionally changed. Why would a professional photographer change the date in his camera - by many years?

7. These photos were intentionally downsized AFTER being uploaded to Flickr. Both images were uploaded as 3418 x 2616 images, then made smaller, to 1024 x 768. This is the procedure that was used. (It is very important to note that this is the procedure that MUST be used in order to maintain "original appearing" EXIF data.) (My thanks to Patrick and Kathleen for figuring this out.)

First, the picture was uploaded by Erik99559 to flickr in the ORIGINAL size, which was then recorded in the exif-data.

The original size, as recorded in the exif data, was:

Image Width: 3488 pixels
Image Height: 2616 pixels

THEN, the person who uploaded the picture went into the INTERNAL FLICKR EDITING PROGRAM and changed the size of the picture to 1024 x 768 pixels. He then saved the change and replaced this picture with the original flickr picture.

AS A RESULT, the picture was from then on viewable on flickr ONLY in 1024 x 768 or smaller file size.! The exif data doesn't change at all after you have done the procedure as described above.

You have to click in the end on

"save as new copy"

and NOT

"replace picture"

....because if you click "replace picture", it says in the flickr description that the picture "has been replaced", however, if you just save it as a "new copy" on flickr, then you get a new copy in the smaller size with the ORIGINAL exif data !!! (then you just have to delete your picture in the original size or make it private)
Why would someone do this? This is a FREE account - there is no expense involved in having larger resolution photographs up there. Someone had to follow a very specific set of steps to post pictures that had much smaller resolutions than the originals - but maintained "real" appearing exif data (except for the original size, which can't be altered.) So... why change the resolution so significantly AND then delete the original uploads? Is it because it is much much easier to spot alterations in higher resolution photographs?

8. It is at least worth remarking on the reference to Bill McAllister as Gov. Palin's press secretary. He was - as of mid August, 2008. But at the time the photo was taken, he was still employed by KTUU.

So, let's summarize.

This photograph is the single most often pointed to piece of evidence that Sarah Palin was "definitely" pregnant with Trig Palin in April. But upon examination, what we really have is this:

We have two photographs with incorrect dates, one of which shows signs of being composited, taken by an unknown photographer, uploaded by someone who has never come forward to an anonymous Flickr account after Sarah Palin's VP nomination. They were intentionally made smaller after they were uploaded and the originals either deleted or made private. The only person who has ever commented publicly on the photos, Andrea Gusty, has affirmed they were taken April 13th, but her published account of that day conflicts sharply with other news reports vis a vis what time the legislative session ended. No corroborating video of the photograph of the video shoot can be found.

And these are the only two photographs in which Sarah Palin appears unequivocally pregnant. These photographs have been looked at by millions and used countless times to argue that Sarah Palin was pregnant. My merely pointing out this almost endless list of problems with these photos gains my being termed a "moonbat," "wingnut," and/or many other names I would not even publish here. Would any court in the US accept photos with so many problems as any sort of evidence whatsoever for anything? I doubt it.

The fact that no one in the main stream media - with far more resources at their disposal than I have - has not looked at these photos more critically months ago is absolutely appalling.


1 – 200 of 374   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Thank you, Audrey, for having this analysis done. It'svery enlightening! Did you (or could you) also ask him to provide an opinion on the necklace? That was an area of interest for so many of us. Thanks.

hrh said...

Thank you, Audrey, and congratulations for your excellent research and work. Looks like you've readied yet another nail for SP's political coffin. This was worth waiting for.

BTW, has the merconium hit the fan yet? :-)

Anonymous said...

hmmmm. undewhelming. but the pixels do look to be odd in the places mentioned pics. needs hi res pics or this is a waste of time.

on to the CBJ PDF I say.

Anonymous said...

You are not a "moonbat," or "wingnut," and thank you so much for your diligent attention to this. The exteme measures that the Palin team has gone through to mislead the American public is dispicable. People need to take a full on stance and not let up pressure on them or the MSM to pick up on the misrepresentations regarding Trig's birth. The photos were just two of very many things wrong with Sarah Palin being the birth mother of Trig.


Grandmaj said...

I cannot open the PDF file. I get a messeage that the file is damaged.

luna1580 said...

i knew the low resolution would be a problem. the fact that the photos were intentionally down-sized into lower-res versions after their initial flickr posting is very interesting, as is the fact that gusty reported a session that ended around lunchtime as ending "late night."

why doesn't someone contact andrea gusty directly and ask her who took the photos? her email contact info is on the KTVA site:

and this number was attached to a news article she penned in 2007 (about a zoo elephant) "To contact Andrea, call 907-273-3186." who knows if it's still good.

since she said she "was under the impression" she was the only person who had the pictures (implying the actual memory card/original data files) when they surfaced on flickr, she MUST know who took them. who knows if she would answer, and if that answer would be truthful, but has anyone asked?


wit's end said...

Dear Audrey,

I want to thank you for your tireless pursuit of the truth.

The pictures and their authenticity and provenance are interesting, although I do think less persuasive than the LACK of any proof - DNA, birth certificate, witnesses, medical records.

In terms of the importance of the discussion, I believe that what Sarah Palin did - presuming she faked a pregnancy to claim her unwed teenage daughter's baby as her own - is not all that unusual, or even bad (except that she hypocritically advocates abstinence-only education).

At the time this occurred, she probably wasn't expecting to be in the limelight.

The real question is, what sort of compelling evidence is the lack of vetting in the selection of Palin as VP for the desperation of the Republican party, which apparently has decided it must pander to their fundamentalist base.

But then, having a major contender for leader of the party distribute a dvd with a song referring to our President Elect as a magical negro, is pretty much proof too, also!

Anonymous said...

Audrey - From the bottom of my heart- thank you. Your work here is priceless. This WILL yield positive results-- but it won't happen in a linear fashion. So, as we used to say in the '60's- "Keep the faith, baby!"

Many good wishes to you for a peaceful new year.

Anonymous said...

Excellent blog, Audrey! This report raises a lot of thought-provoking and serious questions about the "erik99559" pictures.

The "release" of the pictures to flickr on the 31st August 2008, two days after Sarah Palin's nomination, would seem to be a deliberate attempt to "kill" the rumours surrounding Sarah's parentage of Trig. The fact that a very well known Alaskan reporter such as Andrea Gusty gave the pictures to when there appear so many "oddities" about them is highly suspicious in itself. In doing so, Andrea Gusty gave these photos credibility (by the way, 99559 is the zipcode of Bethel, Andrea Gusty's birthplace...).

I hope that factcheck or somebody else will now ask Andrea Gusty some serious questions as she confirmed to factcheck that the pictures were not photoshopped.

Anonymous said...

What was Sarah Palin doing on March 19, 2005? She wasn't governor yet. Her bio on Wikipedia says her term as Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission was 2003-2004. What was she up to in 2005?

--Sandia Blanca

Anonymous said...

To anonymous at 3:27

It is correct that the area where the necklace should appear is an area of great interest.

However, it is not true that the report has "neglected" the area, although the necklace is not specifically referred to.

The report mentions that in the neck area "pixels lack edge definition resulting in murky details" and "pixels cloning is evident in redundant tonal values and pattern". He continues to explain that this was "the result of cloning pixels from another region of the image". Therefore he comes to the conclusion that the "neck region clearly appears to have been altered".

Patrick + Kathleen

Anonymous said...

Thanks for all your work on this.
The question that hits me is. If it is thought that SP is expecting in this picture-#1-on the date recorded in the software of the camera -Date and Time (Original): 2005:03:19 23:29:14-does that work out to fit the birth of her youngest daughter??
I don't think it does.
There are at least 5 people- other than SP-involved in either taking pictures or having their pictures taken in the 3 or 4 minutes in the time period recorded by the camera. It's distrubing to me that none of those other individuals wouldnt clearify the time and date.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

I looked at the pics again in B&W this time. The areas the expert pointed out are fishy indeed as well as a few other things I noticed in B&W. The pic with her looking off into space has marked evidence of cloning and masking.

Downlad the pic, turn it into B&W in any image editor and zoom on into her right shoulder and hair area and have fun with the clones!

Punkinbugg said...


Thanks for posting this report and being so thorough.

Couple of questions: What time did you post this? (I admit it; I have no life & have been checking the site between rounds of Spider Solitaire all afternoon. It appeared about 5:30pm Central Standard Time today.)

Yet your site says posted by Audrey at 7:40am...? What time zone are you in?

And what Photoshop expert is not familiar with Flikr? Isn't it the most commonly used website to upload pictures for use on the Internet?

Don't get me wrong --- I'm convinced that SP staged the pregnancy, and this blog is the most organized way to prove it.

I just want to be sure all your t's are crossed and your i's dotted, should MSM scrutiny ever reach this far.

mc said...

Very interesting, Audrey. Now to speculate on what it all means!

I can't think of any innocent reason Palin's image would have been photoshopped in Image 1. Nor can I think of an innocent reason why the two images would have been deliberately reduced in resolution once uploaded on the Flicker account. Perhaps our resident trolls, Craig and Notalib, can come up with reasonable, logical explanations.

Too bad we don't have some other pictures or video of Palin or Gusty from the last day of the session, that we could compare these to. One wonders: did they take an old photo of Gusty interviewing someone in the hall and photoshop "pregnant" Palin into it?

Thank you for all your work on this, Audrey. You are a hero. My fear is that you will grow tired of it all, and give up. Hope you had a good holiday!

midnight cajun

Chirp said...

Keep up the wise work, Audrey! Thank you for your tireless efforts. The truth will win out soon. It must!

Anonymous said...

Really appreciate your comments on why your expert will not be identified publicly. We are not dealing with reasonable people here.

Small private aha! moment here: I did think Palin's position in photo #1 was odd. She should be parallel with the reporter and facing the camera, or looking towards the reporter's face. The suggestion that she doesn't have anything to do with the other people in the picture is very accurate. She does look that way.

Finally, I don't claim to know anything about photography, but I can't think of any reason why somebody would inaccurately date their camera when activating it, or, later, deliberately date it wrongly for a set of pictures. Surely anyone buying a higher-end camera, as you describe this being, is interested enough in photography that they would want time-stamps to be accurate? An accurate time stamp might prove a shot is of significance. And changing the date for a photo seems like a lot of hassle to go through. And why would they change the date to a time when she wasn't pregnant?

Anonymous said...

Thank you!

1. There is another picture that has been labeled April 13. It was of SP giving a presentation. Her hair was in the updo that day, and she had different clothes on.

2. The link to the ADN archives seems to give only current videos.

3. We will be seeing some staff changes in Alaska media after this.

4. This is still very interesting.

sandra in oregon

Alex said...

Fine piece of presentation writing, Audrey. Your former English teachers would be proud. The summary ending is very persuasive. Thank you!

What the case needs is a hungry young journalist. You've laid the trail, but someone has to do the hard work of interviewing, chasing witnesses, and asking hard questions of people. Maybe as more journalists lose work. . .

ocean said...

Great idea to have an expert look at the photos. Thank you.

Days before these pictures were uploaded to Flickr the Alaska state website was scrubbed of Palin's photos taken in March and April.

Anonymous said...

Please add my thanks to everyone else's, Audrey.

That "Photo 1" has always looked fishy to me, mostly because anyone can see that Palin's face is slightly out of focus. I can see individual hairs on the cameraman's head and Gusty's face is focused, but Palin's is slightly blurry. Why would that be, since she's standing about the same distance from the mystery photographer as Gusty?

In earlier blog comments someone mentioned that "playing around with Photoshop" was not the same as "altering" a photo, but was more analogous to changing the treble and bass controls on your stereo. Doing so doesn't change the digital data on the CD; it just brings out different aspects of the music so you hear what you might have previously missed. Keeping that in mind: I took SJK's advice and changed the photo to black & white.

Then, in Preview (a very basic photo editor for Mac), I enlarged the image while increasing the sharpness. Try this at home, kiddies: a very noticable black outline appears on the left side of Palin's face (right side for the viewer). No such black outline appears around Gusty's face, nor around the cameraman's head or any other part of their bodies.

I got this same sort of "outline effect" and out-of-focus blur a few years ago when I cut and pasted a photo of a co-worker into a different photo (for an April Fool's joke).

To my untrained eye it looks as if this image of Palin was cut from a different photo and pasted into Gusty's empty hallway.

Just sayin'!


Silver Salmon said...

I also can't get the pdf report to open, so my apologies if this was already answered within the report.

If Photo #1 "shows some signs of alterations consistent with an image that has been composited from different sources," why is the exif data what it is?

This probably shows my inexperience with Flickr, but can two photos be composited with their photo editor? If so, I can see how the exif data wouldn't change. But if it can't, why does the photo show that date?

If it is a composite image, shouldn't the exif data be either the save date or the upload date? I have some scanned photos on Picasa. One photo was taken on a film camera in March 2004. Under more information on Picasa, it shows the photo as being July 22, 2008. That was the date that the photo was uploaded to Picasa.

hrh said...

Midnight Cajun at 4:38p:

Yes, is certainly does look like SP's image was inserted into the photo. While everything else in the photo looks to be sharp and in focus, the image of SP looks out of focus, soft. And, as others have remarked, she doesn't appear to be relating to the others.

Anonymous said...

I also get the "file is damaged and cannot be repaired" message when trying to open the pdf. -B.

Mary G. said...

Even without the report, which presents some stunning anomalies in Palin's figure and position, the fact that an anonymously produced photo, on a one-off flickr account, could have been proof of *anything* for supporters is quite amazing.
And they say *we* are the ones who cling to puny shreds of evidence!
I don't see how anyone can defend these images as representing anything.
I think it might be worthwhile contacting Andrea Gusty--who was promoted last summer from reporter to weekend anchor. Just as Bill McAllister was promoted last summer. (interesting that fully half of Palin's star witnesses in these photos got recent promotions!)
Thanks to Audrey, the photoshop expert, Patrick and Kathleen, and all other observant, objective individuals!--mary g.

Anonymous said...

Your work is appreciated by so many ! And Sarah's body position in photo #1 is more than odd. She looks really off balance, as if all her weight is on her left foot, which makes no sense in the context of the picture. But looking at her it looks like she should be slowly toppling over to the left . . . in fact the entire proportions of her legs look odd, sort of foreshortened. (Just saw a picture of those famous long legs dressed in a red suit dress and high heels for one of the vp rallies, so that is fresh in my mind).

Any thoughts on why photo #1 might have been tampered with but not photo #2, and what that might mean ?

Anonymous said...

Addendum to post I just wrote -- Sarah appears to me to be in danger of toppling over to HER left, not to ours as we view the picture.

trish in SW FL said...

Audrey, thank you so much for hanging in there with this mystery! You are definitely NOT a wing-nut or moon-bat; you're thorough in your research efforts, and I know we all appreciate it!


Anonymous said...

From Kay,
Audrey & Company…good job on the post…EXCELLENT! Look at these websites…
Starts with Andrea Gusty…
Who was taught by Sharon McConnell…
Now Sharon McConnell works for Doyon and the letter was written by an Erika Swanson…
Does this mean anything? Who knows but does anyone out there know anything about any of these people and if they know Ms. Palin? (December 27, 2008 at 6:35pm)

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure the report really adds anything as far as moving the story forward any. I did download the pic, blew it up and converted it to b/w and didnt note anything unusual about the composition. The only odd thing about the first photo is her position in relation to the camera. It appears that she's looking at the camera guy in a side glance but her body is facing a bit off to the camera.

I'll maintain that this pic was not taken on the date Ms. Gusty says it was, that it was staged and that there is no actual footage of an interview.

As someone said earlier, the pics are really only circumstantial evidence which can be compelling (and in this case is) but the fact that no one seems to be 'talking' keeps the theory from being a slam dunk.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if this has been mentioned our not, but I just noticed something very odd about Image 1. Andrea Gusty is wearing sandals in the picture.

The HIGH temperature in Anchorage on April 13, 2008 was 32.7 degrees. The avg temperature that day was 27.2 degrees. The low was 20 degrees.

Does anyone know anyone who wears sandals in 20-30 degree weather? I know Alaskans are tough but that seems borderline insane.

Compare this to late August 2008 Anchorage temperature which was in the high 50's and low 60 degrees.

I also can't open the .pdf file. I thought it was a acrobat version error but doesn't work in both versions I have.

Longtime reader - first time poster. This blog is like a mystery story - very interesting!


Anonymous said...

To Sandia Blanca --

Palin's political activity in 2005 is noted in Wikpedia:

From 2003 to June 2005, Palin served as one of three directors of "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.," a 527 group designed to provide political training for Republican women in Alaska.[66] In 2004, Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that she had decided not to run for the U.S. Senate that year, against the Republican incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, because her teenage son opposed it. Palin said, "How could I be the team mom if I was a U.S. Senator?"

hrh said...

For what it's worth, I have successfully opened the PFD file twice with no problem.

Could the problem be that a lot of people are attempting to access the file at the same time?

Also, when my computer needs an update, it will not perform all functions and will give me strange (to me) messages about why.

Anonymous said...

For traffic info about this (or any other) site, go here:

and paste

into the little box. And click. You will see the amazing info that this site is ranked within the top 100,000 sites at frequent intervals. This is a major accomplishment.

--Amy the first

Morgan said...

*****To those having problems with the PDF******

Please write Audrey at

If you don't mind, let her know what browser you're using and/or what version of Adobe.

I work on a Mac with Safari and a current version of Adobe reader and it opens with no problem.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

"Any thoughts on why photo #1,"

yes. Angles. #1 shows more belly

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

anon said, "That "Photo 1" has always looked fishy to me, mostly because anyone can see that Palin's face is slightly out of focus".

Yet another issue. As an old time camera guy depth of field via the f stop of the camera determines what is in focus and what isnt.
SP and the reporter arent in the same "focus", yet the rest of the pic seems to be in focus frm the camera guy to the wall. SP not so much!

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

to those with PDF problems, right click on the link, do a "save as" and open it locally. there is no problem with the PDF it may be your browser.

OutsiderSA said...

TY for all the hard work Audrey.

IMO what I found strange if no one else noticed is the pics from March where she has a flat belly (sorry I had all the pics in Paint Shop Pro but closed it) in these pics reported on today, SP seems a bit broader in the face. Did she go on a binge in 3 weeks? In fact if she was photoshopped in, she does appear broader overall.

In PSP you can deform an image to adjust the aspect ratio non uniformly.

The pic of BP holding the baby at a rally, for my wife and I, shows the emotion of who the real mother is and of course that kiss of the baby's head by Levi at 18 years old? Bristol was not there as a baby sitter and that kiss was not something a typical 18yo male does to a baby that is not his.

That said any one know of any other candidates that dragged their whole family with them in recent years on campaigns?

For SP, Trig was no more than a campaign prop the way she held him and there are not really any pics of her looking at baby with any motherly affection on her face.

8 days overdue now or 10 depending on the date and the ADN has nothing to report.

Anyone checking the birth records of the hospitals in AK?

Anonymous said...

From Kay,
Please everyone take note…all the “players” in these pictures are a part of journalism in some form or another. I’m pretty sure that they know how to spin things and distract the viewer…and this includes Ms. Palin. They will all help with the hoax because it furthers their careers or whatever their reasons…it helps them in some way…I guarantee it! My suggestion is, since we know that one of the pictures isn’t “up to par”…focus on the Flickr account person or persons and as I have stated before…the ERIK is probably not a man, it is a woman. I have found with the “Google” two women named Erika who work in journalism and have posted their names. Just a thought from a small town girl…(December 27, 2008 at 7:20pm)

the TV DJ said...

Just a quick note. I have been involved in television for years. I have never known anyone with any television background (which SP has) who would not adjust their entire body to face the camera at a 'more natural' angle. It isn't even anything a real reporter thinks about, it is a habit to 'block the shot' correctly. Also any worthwhile cameraman would not have had let their subject stand at an off angle either.

So, without even looking at the PDF report yet I can say (from years of personal experience) that the photo is a fake OR that SP forgot everything she was taught in journalism school AND the cameraman just sucked at his job.

KaJo said...

Emmak (@ 6:52 PM 12/27)...

I don't think those are sandals Andrea Gusty is wearing. I think they are black flats, like the other person, whose lower body half may or may not be Sarah Palin :)

You can see the upper part of the skin of the foot, the instep, on both of Gusty's feet just below her black slacks. There's a black area that obliterates the pattern of the carpet just below each flesh-colored part of her feet = shoes.

Anonymous said...

Let me first say I am an artist
with a funny knack for seeing things both odd and out of place.

This is the first time Ive looked at these images, and both enlarged.

Here is my take, fwiw.
SP was cut and placed in both of those pictures.
So was the female reporter in #1.
So were the guys.

If you have the blog page up with both pic you can see it is the same exact cut out of SP....she is facing the same peculiar direction and her eyes are as well.
Her hands in the same position.

When you enlarge #1...the photographer AND the doorways/jambs behind both women are distinct and clear w/o waves or any fuzzies.
Both women are grainy and fuzzy by comparison to what is behind them.
The camera guy is so clearly defined there is no reason for the women figures to be that less defined, that more grainy and wavy.

The framed glass pictures on the wall behind the women are completely clear no grain or fuzz as opposed to how less distinct the shapes sizes clothing colors shown with both the women....YET the faces of both women are quite different than what is behind them. Very grainy lacking clarity.

When you enlarge can see the same exact image of SP placed between the two guys but more frontal.

Her clothing is grainy by comparison to the guys.
She is not looking the same direction the guys are...she is looking the same direction she was in #1.

The guy on the right side in tan looks to me as tho he was also shopped in the pic.
The clarity of his outline is quite defined. More so than either the other two figures.
The shadowing of all three is totally different.

In #2 her face is less distinct, more grainy than both guys.
The wall hanging pic behind her is quite are the letters on the wall.

Guy on the left in dark grey is lit with no facial shadows at all and his arm with his hand in the pocket....he wouldnt have his hand in his pocket standing that close to a woman gov and her rear end.
Men dont do that.
I believe he was also shopped in.

Bottom line as far as Im concerned
these are fake pic.
All the figures were shopped in place.

You do not get the kind of shadowing we see in these pictures when you take them indoors.

I could point out a few other light issues but that can wait.


Anonymous said...

Great work Audrey. Dan's report was very well done and this should really bring more interest to the truth.

Ennealogic said...

Is it common during a (what I assume was supposed to be a video interview) for there to be a still photographer taking shots of the videographer, the interviewer, and the interviewee?

I'm trying to think if I've ever seen this sort of shot before -- and the only images I can come up with would be staged; that is, someone is recording someone recording something. The actual interview is "for the camera" that is being held by the person standing behind the man with the video camera.

Does that make any sense?

Anonymous said...

Another thought from Kay…
Or does it work for other people…I do have the dial-up. (December 27, 2008 at 8:00pm)

Karen in WI said...

"That "Photo 1" has always looked fishy to me, mostly because anyone can see that Palin's face is slightly out of focus. I can see individual hairs on the cameraman's head and Gusty's face is focused, but Palin's is slightly blurry. Why would that be, since she's standing about the same distance from the mystery photographer as Gusty?"

This has been bothering me too (moreso when increasing the brightness on the picture) ... and kind of surprised that it didn't really show up in the Photoshop analysis.

Karen in WI said...

Kay ...
gives the Gusty bio. I believe that you're missing the last "5". :)

Mary G. said...

It just hit me--Palin is fuzzy with murky edges in image #1 because she was having a Braxton-Hicks contraction!

Anonymous said...

This was a very thorough, reasonable analysis of the pictures and the report. Thank you for having the report done.

Thanks again for all your efforts. Again and again, you demonstrate common sense and fairness during your search for the truth. Thanks for allowing us to accompany you!

Best wishes,

Anonymous said...

Re the Alexa site data: Ooops, not in the top 100,000, but in the top 3-400,000. I got distracted. Still a very big deal.

Amy the 1st

Morgan said...


Hey guys. We've had a few comments that have gone unapproved from well-meaning and respected contributors because they include personal contact information for folks in and/or connected to the photos.

While this information may be easily accessed online, Audrey has expressed that she prefers it not be broadcast on her blog. She's dedicated to uncovering the truth, but does not want to appear to be "siccing" her readers on these people, either directly or indirectly.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Anonymous at 7:05. Sounds like she was cooling her heels until the next big opportunity came along, but definitely still in the political game.

I'm just puzzling over what the 2005 dates on the photos mean. For image 2, could it be that: (a) the original backdrop photo was taken on that date, with one or more of the subjects later dropped in as suggested by RW at 7:50; (b) the date in the camera was set incorrectly (or changed deliberately); or (c) it was taken in 2005, but at least one of the subjects' bodies was modified? The problem with (a) and (c) is that the Photoshop expert did not detect any tampering with that photo.

-- Sandia Blanca

hrh said...

Kay at 8:06p:

This is what I get when going to the Gusty bio:

Thank you for visiting KTVA. We are sorry the article that you requested is no longer available. Please search for this article in our archive search.

Anonymous said...

i saw the photo of palin with the tv folks the first day after the announcement and it was a significantly different photo than what is provided as your Photo 1. her belly was not as extensive. i remember this because i was looking for proof that she was actually the mother of trig for HOURS that night along with other research on her claims about the bridge to nowhere and the gas pipeline. i would say i spent at least 40 hours researching palin and her comments that first week.

so it comes as no surprise to me that the flickr account was changed. in fact that makes me feel better because when i looked at the photo on your website i kept thinking it was wrong somehow. i would have been impressed with such a large belly in my early days of research....

i wish i had been smart enough to capture that image at the time.

interestingly enough there were items that went missing in other areas of her governorship that did not make the mainstream news -- mostly about the production profit tax (PPT) on oil and gas revenues.

at times these things seemed to disappear before my eyes as i was googling. some of that i figured was due to the Alaska server being overtaxed..... now i wonder if it was "cleanup".

sorry about picking the anon - just call me Fed Up with Palin for now.

hrh said...

Kay & Karen: The extra "5" is the key. It works.

hrh said...

Mary G. said...
It just hit me--Palin is fuzzy with murky edges in image #1 because she was having a Braxton-Hicks contraction!
December 27, 2008 8:21 PM

Or a low amniotic fluid day!

Anonymous said...

From Kay,
Oops my bad about the 5 at the end of the Gusty bio…
To Audrey & Company,
Nothing scares people more than uncovering the truth.
(December 27, 2008 at 8:50pm)

Anonymous said...

From Kay
Just more random thoughts…
Why NO announcement from Ms. Palin about being a “GRANDMA”…maybe because she already is one! No need to make an announcement…still getting her “ducks” in a row.
Please everyone…search, search, search, search & search (just please be respectful to Audrey (BECAUSE AUDREY DESERVES IT). And if I caused any trouble…sorry…but it is my middle name. But I won’t apologize for making people (esp. in Alaska) come forward with the truth, I JUST REQUEST THAT YOU AUDREY AND COMPANY…RESEARCH ALL COMMENTS…THERE MAYBE SOMETHING TO THEM. I for one respect the moderating…this is the only website that I blog on!
More on Ms. Palin not “producing” an announcement…maybe she has used up all her “favors” and people don’t want to help her anymore because she didn’t become VP. Think about it…VP (ok.. “I’ll do it”)…NOT VP… (“So sorry Ms. Palin, got what I wanted…WON’T DO IT”). Mommy Sarah is scared sh*#less and doesn’t know what to do…keep searching for the truth.
(December 27, 2008 at 9:30pm)

Anonymous said...

Wow, the three people in the three-shot are all grainy and blurry...

And in the other pic, Gusty and Palin are also blurry and grainy in dramatic contrast to the sharp image of the cameraman and the wall art behind them.

And the light looks all wrong on everyone. And the way the men are standing so close behind and in front of Palin is odd and unnatural. And the outlines of one of their suits looks enhanced.

But what's also odd is the PROPORTIONS of the gray-suited guy in comparison to Palin. She usually wears at least some heel, making her 5'5 at least. He looks to be at least a foot taller, doesn't he, even though he's a bit behind her (and so should look not so tall).

And his head is quite a bit longer than hers. Yet it is also considerably narrower.

Who is this unusually tall guy with the unusually long narrow face?

Do these odd-seeming proportions argue for the photoshopping, or is that how he really looks?

Silver Salmon said...

Crazed ramblings. Please excuse and dismiss if they make no sense.

I'm also tinkering with the photo via Microsoft Office Picture Manager. I'm also shocked at how grainy Palin and Gusty are.

I can buy that the photographer and at least parts of the hallway were shot with a 9.0 megapixel camera. I can't say the same about Palin and Gusty.

I get similar looking shots taken at a distance with my 7.1 megapixel Kodak C743. Close up shots with my camera are normally very clear.

To give you examples of what I mean, here are two photos I took from the same location with the same camera. One is a close-up; the other isn't.

Three feet away:

Twenty feet away:

To me, it looks like the original Palin and Gusty photo(s?) were blown up to three times their normal size. That was cut out and inserted into the cameraman photo ("Scott") which had been blown up to 3418 x 2616. Palin and Gusty were inserted and the photo was saved at that size.

It was then uploaded to Flickr where it was pared down to its current size so it looked much clearer.

Would that Fuji camera take an initial picture of 3418 x 2616? My Kodak is 7.1 megapixels and its initial photo size is 1600 x 1200. My previous digital camera, also a Kodak was 3.1 megapixels and its initial photo size would be around 640 x 459. It's understandable that the 7.1 would take photos twice the size of the older 3.1 camera, but this Fuji came out about the same year as my current camera. How could its initial photo size be three times the size of mine?

The exif data says no flash was used, which I believe with the original cameraman part of the photo. You can almost always see a flash off a shiny surface. I may be a complete fool here, but I don't know if there should be a reflection to that degree off the boat photo to the left.

On Microsoft Office Picture Manager, I've gone into the brightness and contrast feature and changed it to
Brightness 27
Contrast 84
Midtone -33

I am seeing no reflection whatsoever of the photographer. Even without a flash, I think I should be able to make out some shadow of him or her.

On to Photo #2:

It is strange that there is absolutely no reflection off of one set of glasses, yet Palin's look almost dirty.

I think I can make out what is being reflected in her glasses. It appears to be the woodwork in the hall. Yet it is at a slant instead of straight on, like I think it should be.

trish in SW FL said...

Kay @ 8:54 PM: Nothing scares people more than uncovering the truth.
and I have the feeling someone's getting more scared with each passing day. also too ::wink::

Anonymous said...

I took the liberty of blowing up and changing to b/w, the interview pic.
Can anyone notice discrepancies?

There is hair growing from her chin?


Audrey,you are an incredible person. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

I think the fact of photoshopping might actually be not just arguable but provable by a mathematical analysis comparing the varying sizes of the three heads and bodies in the picture (of Palin and the two guys) relative both to each other and to the objects in the background (doorway size, pictures).

It appears to my untrained eye that the three were shot separately at varying distances from the camera, and so they don't quite add up, proportionately. A mathematician/geometer could probably assess this.

Even more compelling, perhaps: do as I did and crop out the three heads separately, then line them up on a word document. Note that the lighting on each face is utterly different.

That does not seem possible unless in fact each image was separately shot and inserted in order to create a group photo.

Anonymous said...

I'm looking at that first photo again and there does seem to be a possible explanation for the odd pose. She is faced slightly towards Gusty as one would be if they were talking to the reporter and yet looking at the camera directly as the interview was captured on film. Still doesnt explain why there would be a third person taking still shots of the interview...that seems odd to me. The biggest value of this photo is that its alleged to have been taken before her trip to Texas and in the photo she is unmistakeably pregnant. No flight attendant could have missed that but the fact that they had no idea she was pregnant says to me this photo was staged to address the rumors which had been circulating.

Fran said...

Thank you Audrey for continuing to pursue this. I have a few questions. Is the .PDF the entire report that was provided to you? It seems lacking in detail. For instance it says "Running a variety of color isolation techniques, high pass filters, and channels splitting, no pixels in the image appear to have been altered or manipulated", but does not list what specific settings were done.

On Image 2, there are notations showing that Sara's image appears to be unaltered. Was the rest of the image checked to see if it was altered? It seems that Sara is part of the image, rather then sourced from elsewhere. However it doesn't seem to say anything about the possiblity that the either one or both of the men's images were added to image with Sara. To the naked eye, the relative placement of the people is odd. Why is that guy posing in the back in a casual attitude when he is the lowest status person in the image? Why is McAllister is front of Palin, the highest status person. If that is an unaltered photo, it is still one weird, unnatural tableau. It appears posed, but who would pose two reporters (at the time McAllsiter wasn't her press secretary) with her, especially with an arrangement that suggests that she is the lowest status person in the shot?

Regarding the date of the images. I wonder if the data was set back to March 19th intentionally to make it look like it was taken a month before she gave birth and the 2005 was just a mistake; It was supposed to be 2008. The discrepancies between the date on the photo and the claims of Andrea Gusty that it was April 13, just 5 days before Trig was supposed born maybe due to her thinking that a day of March 19th would be less believable given the fact that the few other photos of Palin around that date show a much smaller abdomen.

I don't know waht to make of her differening description of when the State legislature ended, except to say that every single time I have read an article or seen a news segment in which I had personal firsthand knowledge of the events being covered, they have contained one or more glaring errors. Contrary to popular belief, reporters suck at getting every detail right.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for carrying the torch, Audrey! Zimbio heavily censored my "Timeline in the Palin Pregnancy" but I didnt have the expertise or diligence to follow this as you have.

I predict you'll be extensively featured in the New Yorker article that summarizes the scandal, when the truth becomes known. I think we're days or weeks away from that glorious moment, now.

Wave Bub-Bye, Sarah: Bernie Madoff had his Harry Markopolos, yours is our very own Audrey!

Lilly said...

It seems to me that every other post-pregnancy announcement photo of SP that we've seen she is wearing her trademark scarf tied around her neck that falls over her belly. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't remember another photo from that Mar - Apr period where she wasn't wearing that scarf. Where was the scarf on this day if in fact this day really took place during that time period.

Thanks Audrey for your continued pursuit of the truth and your incredibly diligent work and the enormous time that you've put into this. I do believe it will pay off - hopefully sooner rather than later.

Anonymous said...

I just checked out the Andrea Gusty bio and enough of us are doing so that it is showing up on their most viewed articles list in the right-hand corner on the KTVA home page! Maybe they'll wonder why and start looking into this - if they don't already have someone keeping an eye on this site.

Also on the list is an article from 7/28 about the investigation into Palin's abuse of power. Again - I'm guessing Palin's Deceptions folks are causing this.

Anonymous said...

I used to be in the tv news bz more than 10 yrs ago.

Getting a reporter to be part of the cover-up is HIGHLY, HIGHLY unlikely... Even in wacky Alaska. Getting a reporter and the tv photographer both to be in the conspiracy is darn near unbelievable.

Love the blog Audrey. But we're getting nowhere with the photo stuff.

Our hope lies in someone getting a few neighbors or teenagers to talk about what they may have witnessed with Bristol during the time in question.

wayofpeace said...

one possible reason SP's face looks fuzzy may be that the spotlight (metal holder seen at the right edge of the picture) is aimed right at her face; thus, her face is overexposed.

she seems to be looking in the same direction as the light.

regardless, it feels staged.

Anonymous said...

I saw someone ask about the lighting in the photos. I am wondering about the fact that there are no clear shadows on the wall behind the women, while there appears to be quite a strong light above the camera. There are clear shadows under the pictures on the wall.

Anonymous said...

Kudos, Audrey and associates. This is a lot of work. I was really glad to come upon your site. As a mother and Physician Assistant who practices in Alaska, I never believed the "story". The relative silence from her physician and the timing of her released medical records speaks volumes.

I know nothing about photography. But, even an untrained eye can spot discrepancies. In 'image 1', do note that the light from the videographer causes ALL of the picture frames to cast a small shadow just below where they are hung on the wall. Why is it that neither Mrs. Palin nor Ms. Gutsy cast a shadow? Seems to me that we should see a shadow either on the floor and/or on the wall behind them. We SHOULD be able to see a shadow because we are looking at a side view, not a frontal view. Look at the photo again...ALL of the picture frames have a small shadow but the two main images (Palin and Gutsy) do not. Is that possible if the photo has not been altered?

Anonymous said...

"This is not a minor difference, one person saying for example that it was over 'at lunchtime,' and another saying it was 1 PM. There is a huge difference between lunchtime and 'late Sunday night.'"

Audrey, in that first sentence, do you mean 1 AM?

sarah.hoax said...

Please help me understand these due dates. Sarah camp gives it as December 19th. (average). So that would mean conception occurred on April st. But if Bristol had Trig on April 18th the earliest, could Bristol have gotten pregnant May 1st? So in actuality the earliest HOAX Bristol term date is January 20th. So she has two weeks from Dec 20th to give birth, about January 3rd to support the Sarah/Trig claim. All we can do is wait.

Anonymous said...

A couple of separate thoughts: Trig's full name, which is something like Trig Paxson Van Palin, is commonly known. A search for the full names of the other Palin children yielded no positive results. In fact, one of those "question" pages noted that the information was not known. I found Bristol's accident report which listed her name as Bristol S. Palin. The court report also notes that addresses are not published though I think there was an address tab on the site. Bristol's address at the time could be informative. The accident date was November or December 2007, so Bristol may not have been obviously pregnant at the time.
Knowing full names could be important in case that "Bristol" is a nickname and not her legal name. A hospital record could list a different legal name.

On the scarves issue, Sarah could have taken her scarf off, on show & tell day, to flaunt her belly for the cameras. Makes sense. The question I have is, would someone who always wears a scarf 24/7 bother to put on a necklace in the morning? Do any other scarf era pictures indicate a necklace below?

Anonymous said...

Thank you Audrey for this blog.

Just some observations on Photo 1: having been interviewed a few times myself, the setup of this shot does seem all wrong. A professional tv crew know exactly what they want in a scene set-up and where they want you to be looking. Also, why would the tripod at the right of the picture (presumably a light) not be actually casting any light or reflection on the scene? Why would a cameraman set up a shot down a hallway full of empty boxes if he had a choice not to? There is no reflection of any of these people or the gear in the glass framed photos that are on the walls either side of the scene.

That, along with the obvious oddity - why is Palin facing the tripod and not the camera? Even if you were waiting to comment, you would naturally be looking at either the interviewer or the camera. She is looking off into a completely different direction. I agree, it does not look like she was ever in this shot originally and was added in later.

Unfortunately, more questions than answers. Hopefully the truth will out.

wayofpeace said...

RE lighting & shadows.

i was wrong in thinking that the tripod on the far right was the spotlight.

actually, the lighting is on the camera itself aimed at the wall. there's a bright cone of light that is evident.

so, what is that metal tripod that SP seems to be looking at?

true, there are no shadows cast by the 2 women on the floor. the reason may be fluorescent lighting on the ceiling.

Anonymous said...

I would like to point out again that it was Andrea Gusty herself who gave this picture to and therefore could be seen as claiming responsibility for its ownership.

See here:

Excerpt from

"But this photo, which has been making its way around the Web, shows a very pregnant Palin alongside CBS’ KTVA 11 reporter Andrea Gusty.

We spoke with Gusty, who sent us this copy of the photo, and she told us she was surprised the photo had made it onto the Internet. “I was under the impression that nobody had it except for me.” When we asked her if the photo circulating online had been altered in any way, she said there was “no photoshopping,” and that the photo was taken during a live interview with Palin in mid-April 2008, at the end of the state Legislature’s regular session. “About a week after that picture was taken, [Palin] actually gave birth to Trig,” Gusty told “I actually did an interview with her about two or three days after she had given birth. And that’s when she and Todd introduced the baby to the world.” The Palins formally announced the birth of their fifth child on April 18."

The behaviour of Andrea Gusty as a supposedly "independent" journalist raises a lot of questions, for example: What was the motivation for her to give the picture to factcheck in the first place? Why was she so adament that the picture was "not photoshopped"? Why was she surprised that the picture was published on flickr on the 31st August 2008? Why has she never explained who took the picture and how it came into her possession?

Andrea Gusty has put her credibility on the line here, and unless she answers those questions, and for example provides the original high-resolution copy of this picture, her credibility will be gone, as she has crossed a line and gave up her journalistic independence in doing a "favour" for such a highly controversial politician as Sarah Palin.


sjk said...

Image 2: dude on the right has a glow around his shoulders that SP or the other guy doesnt have and SP hair shows some cloning on her right side.

Mary G. said...

Actually it is pretty odd that the second photo has as a caption, "Myself, Gov. Palin, Press Secretary McAllister", when McAllister was NOT press secretary until August, I believe. In April he was still a reporter.
The naysayers are perhaps trying to gather forces or making offerings to the gods for some miracle to distract further attention.
One commenter expressed disbelieve that reporters and journalists would take part in a cover-up or staged photo op. What? In the US, where the corporate media reigns? Look at the Washington Post's Sept. 7 (not sure of date) series of articles on Palin, where they quote a "source" who saw Palin in labor--turns out the source was an infant born April 18--the WashPo "correction" then said, oh, we meant X saw Palin, the mother of said baby--problem is, the mother never actually made any statement about seeing Palin. But the WashPo did NOT correct that, nor did they ever explain why they used a clearly inveneted source. (this is on Audrey's website, too, maybe under No family pictures or Palin's birth story). Mary g.

Jen said...

Lilly said...

It seems to me that every other post-pregnancy announcement photo of SP that we've seen she is wearing her trademark scarf tied around her neck that falls over her belly. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't remember another photo from that Mar - Apr period where she wasn't wearing that scarf. Where was the scarf on this day if in fact this day really took place during that time period.


sarah was dressed like that that day. one of only a few times she was not wearing her scarf.

but here's something i found from looking at all the pics before after pregnancy.

it's the way she wears the scarves. during pregnancy she tucked the scarf on the inside of her jacket collar -- i have never seen anyone do that.... after pregnancy she wears the scarves on the outside of the jacket, tucked under the collar.

also in pics of her in her own house during a spouses lunch (on march 29) she is wearing a long coat and a very long black scarf.

Alex said...

I made this comment a few weeks back, but to repeat it here. . .

To have staged this (at whatever date) SP wouldn't have had to tell anywhere close to the truth to get these people to cooperate. In her folksy way, she could have enlisted their "help" because, "Gosh Darn It, I just didn't manage to get any good photos of me pregnant and now the McCain folks need one!"

Or she could have had someone create the photos, and the people in them had no idea it was being done since the images could have been lifted (or mixed) from prior photos. Then, what a surprise, if you're Ms. Gusty, to see yourself in a photo you don't quite remember happening; but then, hey, this is the Governor telling you it did, so it must have. Hence, Gusty "misremembering" the details of that evening. . .

Again, when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing (ie. Madoff), people accept buckets of oddness and lies, and if the person perpetrating it all has tons of power, so much the better. As another commenter said, at least two of these folks have professionally profitted by their relationship with Palin. Didn't Gusty get the first interview post Trig birth? That's a real AK coup.

No, it doesn't have to be some vast conspiracy. It just takes the manipulation of one very determined person to pull it off.

Who in their right mind would step forward and say, "Uh, this photo never happened."

Anonymous said...

Anyone here vote in this Gallup poll?

Anonymous said...

I still think that the proportion of SP next to Gusty looks all wrong (ie that SP was photoshopped in). Does anyone know Gusty's height? Is it possible to go through the other videos of her on the KTVA website and figure it out by measuring her size relative to known people/objects?

Anonymous said...

Not necessarily for publication lest I tip my hand to the Palinites--it's my understanding that or "the wayback machine" can show any webpage as it was on a given date, which should mean the March/April photos on the State site that were removed around the time of the nomination can be recovered.

Margot said...

Audrey, Are you having the doctor's letter examined?
I've read your report as well as the .pdf file. What motive is there for altering one picture?

In my opinion the two pictures showing SP clearly not pregnant are the smoking gun.

Anonymous said...

Image 1: The pictures behind Gusty show some reflections of pictures on the wall across the hall. But they do not appear to show any reflection of Gusty or Palin. Are these "mirrors" located just so, that they just missed picking up the girls?

Anonymous said...

"I don't know waht to make of her differening description of when the State legislature ended, except to say that every single time I have read an article or seen a news segment in which I had personal firsthand knowledge of the events being covered, they have contained one or more glaring errors. Contrary to popular belief, reporters suck at getting every detail right."

That is true, but then think of the circumstances. It's the end of the legislative session, and you're interviewing (supposed: no video has come to light) an extremely pregnant governor. I can't speak for others, but if I was seeing a very pregnant woman and it was late at night as Gusty said, I would think of that. I would think how tired she must be at the end of a very long day. I'd ask if she felt all right; if we needed to talk sitting down. I mean, it would be enough on my mind that it would sort of mark the event for me. As opposed to immediately after the session, when there would be crowds of people leaving and that would be noticeable.

Anonymous said...

"any one know of any other candidates that dragged their whole family with them in recent years on campaigns?"

Not their entire family, but Palin is the only candidate I'm aware of that thinks giving birth is a qualification.

"Anyone checking the birth records of the hospitals in AK?"

No, but I don't necessarily think it matters. Bristol can decide whether or not she wants the information published, under HIPAA, and I'm sure her mother would be happy to fudge the date if she thought it would make her, Sarah, look better, or even just confuse the issue. Anybody think Bristol isn't under her mother's thumb? because I do.

Anonymous said...

Image 2: Any telling details in the reflections in Palin's glasses? May not be able to get anything useful, given the quality of the image from flikr.

Anonymous said...

Someone asked about "innocent" reasons someone would alter the size of a photo on flickr or other websites.

One of my good friends is a professional photographer, so I asked her. She said that she reduces the size of all photos she posts on her site, her blog, flickr, etc. so that if a client were to right-click and save the image, it would be too small to produce decent prints. She said nearly all pros do this to protect their work. She also said that if she is going to share an image on a message board, she reduces the size to make it easier to view online. But she also added that she reduces the size in photoshop - she does not upload full size versions to flickr or other sites and then reduce them.

Someone else asked about the other Palin kids' full names. A story in the Frontiersman about Piper's birth lists her full name as Piper Indi Grace Palin. I have not been able to find anything listing Track, Bristol and Willow's full names. One possible source that could be checked - the high school yearbook. My yearbook listed the seniors' full names, and because photos are usually taken in the fall, Bristol should be listed in the yearbook, even if she later transferred to another school and did not graduate.


Miss Anne said...

So, depending on whose reporting of Bristols' due date is more accurate, she is between 7-10 days overdue. I wonder when they're going to hang her pit?

*insert merconium/fan reference here*

Anonymous said...

Re: the question as to why someone would take a still shot of an interview in progress. The only reason I can think of for why a member of the media would do so would be to have a photo of their news team "in action" for publication on their website.

As for the date on the camera, we've all sort of assumed that the camera is someone's personal camera. What if it's not? If the camera is/was owned by the news station, it could have been handled by any number of people, any of whom could have changed the date for various reasons... in which case, whoever took these photos may not have even realized that the date was off.

That's a possible explanation, however changing the date on the camera would also make it more difficult for someone to determine when a photo was taken, which you'd want if you staged the photo and it was taken months after the alleged pregnancy ended.


Anonymous said...

Are there really no pictures from the legistative session itself? Wouldn't Palin have been there presiding over it?

Is it true that the only pictures are these two strangely posed shots taken in an empty hallway for a apparently non-existent video taped interview?

I try to imagine if California had a popular woman governor who had a baby and NO ONE got pictures of her during her pregnancy.

Boggles the mind.

ocean said...

Track's middle name is Enfield

wayofpeace said...


i totally agree with you.

what you describe is a professional's SOP for uploading photos online. if not, anyone would rip off their work.

BUT, downsizing file AFTER it was first saved as a large DPI version is still dubious.

Anonymous said...

anon at 8:24

I had enlarged the pic 2 with a professional zoom program (you can download the trial version of this program for free - the free version will make a watermark into a saved picture, but instead of saving a picture in the conventional way, you can simply make a high resolution screenshot with the free program "MW Snap" of the enlarged picture).

Here is the pic 2 with the reflection in her glasses - you can clearly see the reflection of a figure there, but apart from that, it is difficult to come to more precise conclusions:


(the program I used was "BenVista Photo Zoom Pro")


Anonymous said...

Anony I agree with your statement "any one know of any other candidates that dragged their whole family with them in recent years on campaigns?"

Here is more proof:

mc said...

A few thoughts...

On the March 07 dating of the photos, perhaps the "original" of photo #1 (cameraman and hall, with or without Gusty) was taken on that date, hence the need to set the camera to that date when #2 was composed.

I still think something is weird with the right sleeve of McAllister in photo#2. The line is too straight.

I googled Dan Carpenter (the younger dude who id's himself as "myself" in photo #2). He seems to cover Wasilla a lot (the church fire, a dog getting shot, etc). Is that where he's from?

The lack of Sarah's scarf is so convenient and yet odd, isn't it? I agree with however pointed out that a woman wouldn't put a scarf on over a necklace (it's uncomfortable). On a side note, I did the scarf thing when I was pregnant, but I always tied mine in a bow--it helped balance the bulk of my stomach. But then, I wasn't trying to camouflage anything, just look better (and I have a very pronounced, square jaw like Sarah). Not that that proves anything, of course; we already knew her pre-RNC fashion sense was horrific.

Anonymous said...

Two observations:

1. The resizing of the photos doesn't trouble me. I have posted many photos to various websites, and the original size of #1 and #2 in question here were just too big (they would take way too long for someone with a dialup connection to view, and might not fit properly on screen). It would be more usual to resize the images before uploading them, but if you have a fast connection there is no reason not to resize them after uploading.

2. Several comments here suggest that no professional reporter or news photo/videographer would have handled these shots as they appear. However, while there are certainly many highly competent reporters and photographers in the Alaska news market, there are also many hacks and wannabes. For instance, one Sarah Palin was actually employed as a "reporter" on Anchorage TV. It would be no surprise if these were just badly done.

Anonymous said...

Ocean at 9:04, ha, but actually Track's middle name is Mark.

wayofpeace said...

i've been ZOOMING on picture #1:

a couple of odd things:

+ the power cord around GUSTY's shoes snakes towards SP and then it disappears? or maybe there's an outlet behind the boxes.

+ those of you with knowledge of a professional video camera may explain the reason for the odd cone of light shed on the wall.

initially i thought it came from the camera but the light source on top of the camera is plainly directed to the front not the side.

is it possible that at the front of the spotlight there is a diffuser that can aim the light sideways?

another observation: it seems that the 2 women in the picture are identical in height. is that verifiable?

anon at 9:13.

that picture is the exception to the rule.

the OBAMAS rarely brought the girls on the campaign. NO WAY can you compare that to the way the PALINS paraded their family.

all the while having them miss school; in particular PIPER, who in an interview with NBC's LAUER lamented that it was so.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Audrey for this investigational activity. Please keep on until the truth is finally revealed.

palin pregnancy truth said...

Thank you SO much Audrey for all the hard work (and personal money) that you have put into this blog. I do believe we are getting closer to the truth.

I have a couple suggestions for your team as well as questions.

1) Can we contact I feel like in light of this report and the questionable missing video and article photos for that day, this picture needs to be explained. Did Gusty have the original? Did she send it to them? Then perhaps we have the higher resolution picture. I think we should also point out the questions of when it was posted, the staged appearance, and the fact that they are all media people in the pictures.

BTW, I don't think its hard to get media people to be in on the scam considering that one of them is currently her press secretary and that she used to work for the other news station.

2)Did the photoshop expert figure out what was written on the box? Has anyone been able to decipher it. It might be completely unrelated but I think its worth investigating further.

3) This is unrelated to the post but I just noticed the card with Trig's picture that Patrick posted in flickr:

Where is the birth announcement of Jeremiah Allen to Levi and Amber. Did anyone screen capture that? The photo looks strikingly similar to what I remember but now I can't find the photo since the hospital page has been updated. Did anyone capture it?

Anonymous said...

Not sure what relevance this has, but there was an item that came up during the discussion of SP's wardrobe during the campaign. Before the debate with Biden, the campaign ordered a new pair of glasses for SP because her regular glasses gave back too much glare. Pretty late in the game for that, but that would indicate that the glasses in picture 1 should have made the background clearer.

sandra in oregon

Jen said...

Where is this baby? Wasn't she due on Dec 18th? No doctor would let her be over a week overdue... and wouldn't the press be all over it if she had gone into the hospital?

Anita said...

re: Patrick 912am

I noticed that there is a lot of 'noise' in SP's glasses' reflection, but the man on the right (brown jacket) seems to have no reflection showing! I realize that he is facing more towards our left and SP is facing our right, but surely they would show the same basic amount of light and 'noise' reflecting?!

Anonymous said...

@ Karen in WI


Kay is right.
The link takes you to this page:

" Thank you for visiting KTVA. We are sorry the article that you requested is no longer available. Please search for this article in our archive search."

However, this link which you have:
gives you the Bio of Ms. Gusty

PS: Hello everyone!
Please GO TO and shorten your URLs. It seems some have trouble to view the source of the long URLs. It really takes a little effort to shorten your URLs at

Anonymous said...

The photo analysis is fascinating; thank you for following up. It is very interesting that no one will claim these photos as their own or provide the original, verifiable images. There is no doubt that they would not be admissible evidence in a court of law, even based on the fact that the photographer and date are unknown -- let alone signs of tampering with the image.

Audrey's summary is exactly on point -- there are so many questions and doubts about the authenticity of these photos that they cannot be considered proof of SP's pregnancy. It is now clear that neither these key photos nor the doctor's letter can be independently authenticated. I agree that the MSM are appalling in their disinterest and lack of follow-through. (If I were an aspiring investigative journalist, I know where I would be doing my breakthrough project -- this is really interesting and would make a great expose!)

To answer a few other questions that have arisen on this section of the blog, there were at least some informal festivities in the State House on 4/13, celebrating the end of the legislative session. See http://www.newsminer.
(I would caution folks not to read too much into the following caption re SP, as I believe it may have been a legitimate error that it was posted on the 4/13 page but refers to Trig's birth the following week. But I know that some folks have speculated that Trig was born earlier, and this may suggest this is so. Probably an error though.)

Re Gusty's footwear, I don't think they are sandals. They look just like the type of flats that have a simple bow tied at the front to me. They were called "Capezios" or ballet flats when I was growing up, and have made a fashion comeback this past year. My daughter had a pair that looked very similar to the ones Gusty is wearing. So, no, they aren't sandals, but simply flats that show quite a bit of her foot.

Trivial point -- it's meconium (no r); but we don't want to be mistaken for the trolls who can't spell, right?

I keep wondering if there is something that would show McAllister in the same remarkable outfit (hopefully not something he wears every day) -- a newscast or PR announcement perhaps? Or Carpenter in a suit (albeit with stain on tie), as there are numerous photographs of him wearing casual clothes when on duty as a videographer. I haven't been able to find anything to verify what they were wearing in Juneau on April 13th.

Is anyone familiar enough with the Juneau State House to verify the locations of the photos? The positioning in Photo 2 is also strange -- I assume they were squished together in photo 2 because they were in a narrow hallway?

I believe that Sarah's tangled web is unravelling, and that there will be more revelations soon.


Anonymous said...

@Mary G.

That's an excellent observation!

Mr. McAllister became Press Secretary in July.

This should be an additional proof of the fake photo. Indeed, Ms. Gusty lost her credibility as a journalist. Wonder her employer is aware of all this. They should be.

Mary G. said...

Actually it is pretty odd that the second photo has as a caption, "Myself, Gov. Palin, Press Secretary McAllister", when McAllister was NOT press secretary until August, I believe. In April he was still a reporter.
The naysayers are perhaps trying to gather forces or making offerings to the gods for some miracle to distract further

Anonymous said...

December 28, 2008 6:41 AM :
I actually saw somewhere (Sorry, don't remember the site...) that the mother-in-question denied the whole episode and said something that *SHE* was walking the hallways, and that TODD was. But she NEVER SAW SP!

Anonymous said...

""This is not a minor difference, one person saying for example that it was over 'at lunchtime,' and another saying it was 1 PM. There is a huge difference between lunchtime and 'late Sunday night.'"

Audrey, in that first sentence, do you mean 1 AM?"

I think Audrey meant that this isn't a minor difference, LIKE someone saying "at lunchtime" and another person saying "1pm" which would be close. There's just a big difference in this case, which is "at lunchtime" and "late Sunday night."

Great work, Audrey and photoshop expert! You've given people a lot to think about. I hope someone in the msm picks up the ball.

Anonymous said...


Please go to:

to retrieve all webpages that you're looking for. The Internet Archive Wayback Machine contains web pages archived from 1996 to the present.
So, you can find out a lot :-|

KaJo said...

To Anon "in the tv news bz" @ 12:16 AM 12/28...

We already know at least ONE tv photographer is good buddies with Sarah Palin, and semi-fell on his sword for her in the Turkey Massacre interview.

That would be Scott Jensen, who helpfully sent along a video called "Sarah and Goliath" to a conservative political activist, Stephen R. Maloney, in August 2007.

Anonymous said...

I suspect McAllister had something to do with the creation and/or posting of these photos - the day Palin was announced. He must have been in on the scrambling to remove items and provide this "proof" of pregnancy. Remember her Wiki page was updated that day (by someone with the screenname of Trig - weird) But a couple days later they still found the need to blab on Bristol, just for extra cover.

Since it wasn't posted until August, why not describe him as press secretary in the caption? He was then.

I wish someone close would make friends with Carpenter and get the scoop on the photos from him.

Final thought - I really think anyone could have snapped the photos in the hallway. Maybe a family member or friend of one of the subjects who was hanging around, watching the goings on.

NJESQ said...

I looked again at Image 2. Am I simply imagining something that is not there, or, beneath the blouse which SP is wearing, is there the faint outline of something diamond-shaped, with a horizontal line extending to the viewer's left (SP's right)?

If anyone else sees this, does it make sense to try and use the lighting/contrast techniques used in PhotoShop on other photos, in order to get a better analysis?

Anonymous said...

Are there any photographers out there? I am just slightly troubled by photo #2. McAllister is in sharper focus than the other guy - but then the hallway remains in focus for, what, 15 feet behind the trio. I am guessing the tall guy moved slightly (shutter speed = 1/20 sec) which could account for the slight blur. But does that great depth of field square with what y'all would expect? How far would you estimate the shooter is from the trio? Six feet? Eight feet? My rough calculations (and use of suggest the DOF could be that deep if the shooter is 8 feet away, but not 6. This is all probably needless - but it is hard to know what to trust where Palin is involved.

janeword said...

At this point, it makes little difference except to the people of Alaska. It is interesting to note, however, that a week after Bristol's due date, no birth announcement has been made.

I regard a mother's obscuring the birth of a daughter's child to be one of those "social white lies" that are usually an open secret, but whose fiction is somewhat face saving.

I'm interested to find out when Bristol does deliver a child.

Anonymous said...

picture of trig and photo of baby to "amber and levi"

comparison for palin pregnancy truth

KaJo said...

RE: Audrey's Photoshop report...

Like nearly everybody, I've looked at both Photo#1 and Photo#2 again after examining the PDF report. I used my own primitive Photoshop software, and I can see some of the critical areas the expert is talking about in "negative" format and also b/w format.

And I can see some of the things Silver Salmon mentioned in the post yesterday @ 10:11 PM -- I see the slight "halo" effect around at least 2 of the 3 participants in Photo#2. None around Sarah Palin in Photo#2, almost as if SHE were pasted in the picture.

But it's what I saw all along in the "original" color version that this recent report reminded me: if you compare the skin tone for SP on both photos, her skin tone in Photo#1 is distinctly redder than in Photo#2, where her skin tone is more distinctly golden.

Heck, what I see is probably not any more conclusive than anything else found to date, but somehow this will all come together. I think the analyst/expert should take a closer look at Photo#2, however.

Anonymous said...

an Enfield is a fine rifle!

sjk said...

jen said.

"Where is this baby? Wasn't she due on Dec 18th?".
Please. When Sarah and or G-d is ready!

SP's father recently said the 20th was the due date, on the record.


Silver Salmon said...

It just hit me why Gusty was shocked that the photos would have surfaced elsewhere. The Fuji was her camera.

I have no proof of that, but I believe that's why she's so adament about certain details. I still feel Photo #1 was heavily adjusted.

Someone must have downloaded the pictures off the camera but not deleted them. Or they were own Gusty's computer and someone saved copies of them.

Now, for Photo #2. I believe what's being reflected in Palin's glasses is the wood molding in the hallway.

Anonymous said...


I went through the photos at Alaska Governor website (the cached version of the website).

These photos that have been examined and reported by the Photoshop Expert, are not there. WHY? There are a few photos from March and April(after the alleged birth date of Trig Palin) and many photos from May.

These two photos(one of them which is definitely fake.. the one that shows her "pregnant belly" ) are not among the photos at Governor website. Don't you wonder why?
Why? Because they're fake. I guess if there is an investigation, and the photos will be used in the court, Gov. Palin will say: " there are no such photos".

These are pieces of evidence that strongly support that Gov. Palin is hiding something or many things with respect to Trig Palin's birth story.

I find it very interesting that a politician who claims to run a transparent government, is actually the most deceptive, the world is witnessing. I also find it very interesting that Gov. Palin does not have much knowledge about the Internet. Don't you think she should know that you cannot scrub things from the Internet for good? How many people do you think already have captured photos, articles, webpages as screenshots? I would say MANY. So. Gov .Palin is indeed making this case very easy. The more stuff that vanishes even from the official Alaska Governor website, the more she is proving that she lied and deceived the American people in order to win the election. Don't you think this is Abuse of Power in a big way?

PS: Hello Audrey, thank you for all your well-organized work. You are amazing. I only wish there was someone in the media that has guts to follow up this. You've done so much work that it shouldn't be difficult for a hard working, determined, persistent reporter to get to the bottom of this deception.

I am positive that Trig Palin was born on an earlier date than April 18, 2008.
I am positive that Gov.Palin is not the biological mother of Trig Palin.
I also believe the Johnstons and the Palins have a bond through Trig, but not through Bristol and Levi.

Half Sigma said...

A Fuji Finepix S9000 is NOT a professional camera, and is not a camera that would ever be used by a professional photo-journalist for news coverage.

It's not odd that the the Flickr headline refers to McAllister as the press secretary. The photo was uploaded to Flickr on August 31, long after McAllister became press secretary.

The most important evidence presented is that the Finepix S9000 does not have a default date, and requires that you set a date when you turn on the camera for the first time. This makes the March 2005 date very mysterious.

Anonymous said...

In Image 2, the nameplate on the wall (next to the door frame[?] at left side of image) says "REP J HARRIS". I cannot read the plate under this one.


Anonymous said...

To Annon:picture of trig and photo of baby to "amber and levi"

comparison for palin pregnancy truth

Lilybart said...

The main reason she is so popular and has captured the imaginations of religious nuts everywhere, is that Down's baby.

It is vitally important to her that Trig is her baby, and because there are so many questions about this birth and because her record during the campaign was to lie about absolutely everything, it is important to keep digging.

This woman is a pathological liar who cannot get near power, even IF Trig is hers!

Anonymous said...

I am looking on the Net for the original of this pic, in digital format. I have my ways. :)

Anyway, what I find interesting about the pic with her being interviewed:

1. She appears to be mindful of the still shot being taken and she is posing for the camera. Notice her right eye is looking at the still camera, with her peripheral vision.

2. She appears to be intentionally pressing down on her top, in the stomach area, so to highlight the rounded stomach. With her looking at the camera, this being a still shot and her pressing on her stomach, this seems an intent on her part to pose for the camera and say "see, I'm pregnant, look down here."

3. Palin knows journalism and how to pose for the camera. [Her background and major in college.] She is aware 100% of the time where the camera is, how many cameras there are, and how she looks, at all times. So that is why I think this is a staged shot by her, photo editing or what not.

Anonymous said...


Have you all seen the "amusing" interchange of emails between PETA and Bill McAllister?

Please have a look at this - here are the links:

also for example:

Although this particular interchange is of no "real" importance, I would like to highlight one fact:

It is obvious that Bill McAllister was "not amused" about the fact the PETA claimed that they were pressurised by the Palin administration - in fact he was so annoyed that he contacted PETA straight away.

Why is that?

Stupid question!

Because it puts the Palin administration in a bad light!!!

So...may I asked everybody here...there are people like us running around that assert that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy...and did several other very strange things...AND?? Who contacts us and threatens us? NOBODY!! And why is that?? Because they cannot defend themselves. Because we are right. They have not a single piece of paper available that supports the notion that Sarah was pregnant with Trig.

This PETA issue was such a petty thing in comparison...but Bill McAllister was keen to get in touch immediately and put the record straight.

Bill, where are you...?



Anonymous said...


John Harris is Speaker of the House and that's the door to his office

Anonymous said...

@anonymous 12:13 PM about lunch and 1 PM and all--right. Reading too fast. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

From Kay,
I am not an expert in computers or photography…so with that said…I am trying to “get with it”…little by little. So thanks to everyone here that is savvy! I said it last evening and I will say it again…the pictures are doctored in some way…so please everyone start focusing on the “players” in the pictures and elsewhere. Audrey & Company will sort thru all the info and post what is appropriate. But keep searching…and esp. everyone in Alaska…LET US KNOW WHAT WAS UP DURING THIS “PREGNANCY”…even if it was a rumor. Rumors lead to truth…I know…I’m from a small town and life is stranger than fiction sometimes. Keep strong and we are all close to the truth and Ms. Palin is worried. (December 28, 2008 at 5:05pm)

KaJo said...

Anon @ 2:53 PM 12/28, you see "Speake..." which, if Dan Carpenter wasn't in the way, would say "Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives".

teal said...

REP J HARRIS [John] was speaker of the house 2005-2008. There is a new SOTH now.

I looked this info up yesterday...but could not find other photos taken in the area. Also I was trying to find the layout of the building and room numbers

Anonymous said...

In regard to picture #2, does it bother anyone that the two men seem to be looking right into the camera while Sarah's gaze just isn't in the same place. When three people get together for a photo, isn't it usually side by side by side?? These three are "placed" one in front of the other in front of the other-- staged. Special thanks!! to Audrey and staff for the excellent research; keep it up!

amy said...

We need to focus on actually talking to people in Alaska such as Dan Carpenter and Andrea Gusty rather than concentrating on this weak evidence such as low-res photos.

These "nail in the coffin" photos are no such things -- we need to get answers from real people who were around Palin during her "pregnancy."

Can someone call or email them in the name of journalism?

Two Blue Jays said...

re Re J Harris

from the Wikipedia entry:

"John Harris (born October 15, 1957 in Glennallen, Alaska) is an American politician and the Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives. He was first elected in 1998 and represents the 12th district, as a member of the Republican Party. He was the mayor of Valdez from 1992 to 1996 and a member of the Valdez City Council from 1990 to 1998. John Harris attended Lincoln Electric Welding School in Cleveland, Ohio and Spartan School of Aeronautics in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is the owner of Valdez Industrial Supply, and has been a board member of Horizons Unlimited, Resource of Alaska, and United Way.[1]

He is Chair of the House Committee on Committees and was Co-Chair of the Finance Committee. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee, the ASC Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the Rules Committee, the Legislative Council Committee, and the following Finance Subcommittees: Court System, Governor, Legislature, and University of Alaska. He was a member of the Ethics Committee, the Finance Committee, the Legislative Budget & Audit Joint Committee, and the Finance Subcommittees for Health & Social Services and Corrections.[1][2]

Harris is considering running for higher office in 2010 [3]"

So, why take the photo in front of his office? Who can say...

Tina in CA said...

I just don't think the baby J looks like Trig. There are a lot of similarities, however, pay close attention to the size of the nose in comparison to the mouth.

Trig's nose is much smaller. Use this pic where his lips are not pursed.

Also, Trig's eyes go up at the far outside edge, where little J's eyes go down.

I think that avenue is a dead end.

Anonymous said...

I am not convinced that picture #1 is composited (and the PS expert stops short of saying that it is). But it definitely looks staged. Consider how the cameraman is framing the shot: instead of a wall behind the subjects, he is positioned so that a receding hallway is the backdrop - that makes no sense from a compositional standpoint. Further, Palin's odd body position relative to the camera and Gusty, which has been commented on greatly, makes sense if you assume that the point of positioning her that way was to emphasize the size of her belly. I am guessing the photographer (Carpenter?) stage-managed the photo the way a director would a film.

To me it seems that if picture #2 is not doctored, then there would be little reason to massively doctor #1 by inserting Palin from a different shot. The actors seemingly were on hand for the one shot - so why not the other? Alternatively, if #1 is composited, then it seems quite possible that #2 is also.


Anonymous said...

If these photos were taken on 4/13 her hair looks shorter and darker than the ones on 4/10 or 4/18. On 4/10 & 4/18 her hair looks very red! How could it be red then 3 days later brown and then 5 days later red. I know you can dye your hair, but every 3 days for a preggo seems dangerous.

Why would Sarah pose with a camera man and a news reporter the last day of legistaure. Why not pose with a legislator? They were standing in front of Rep Harris's office. It looks like he could be speaker of the house.

There is absolutely no purpose for these photo's. The video is not available. There is no news these photos offer. This is a big day to acknowledge what the people benefited from the past 3 months of legislator's decisions. The camera man and news reporter should be doing their jobs and Sarah be posing with the Representatives!

The other thing that stands out with the pictures is the flag pin.
Seems odd for some reason in April, but would have been more appropriate to be wearing in Aug right before your announcement as VP.

Anonymous said...

Smyrna, the plaque below "Harris" says "Speaker." Republican John Harris is Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives, according to Wikipedia.

So that's photo #2's location. I don't see any items in common with photo #1. -B.

Mary G. said...

Why are there no numbers on the door in the Gusty shot, image 1?
Are they posing in front of the john?

Anonymous said...

AAAAaaargh! We have two "amy" people again: "amy 12/28 6:14pm" is not me. Last time she posted, she claimed to be an expert at something or other.

I don't think the photos are weak evidence at all. On the contrary. I don't think we are finished figuring them out, but we are miles ahead of where we were just days ago, thanks to the photo analysis by the expert as well as to the many contributors here. Audrey's summary of what the photos are NOT is hard to beat.

If this was easy, it would have been figured out already. But it's not. Not a problem, though. We'll get there.

--Amy the first

Anonymous said...

I think we are really over-analyzing here if we question why Sarah would take a photo with a reporter and a cameraman. For starters, this is probably a private/friendly photo and not for professional purposes. They would have all worked together at events and saw each other frequently. If it was the last day of the session and she was heading back home, they posed for a friendly photo - for some unknown person with a camera. Remember, she was soon to select McAllister to be her press secretary. I don't see that it would be so strange to have a photo snapped.

The question is who took the photo, and who popped it on Flicker. Was McAllister involved somehow? Was it Carpenter who wrote the caption identifying himself? McAllister must be about as loyal to Palin as anyone could be.

Anonymous said...

No smoking gun.

Anonymous said...

The evidence keeps piling up, ever more convincingly, that Palin is not Trig's birth mother. At this point, I believe that there is no credible case to support her claim. But, she may have a small window of opportunity, if/when Bristol's new baby is born, to set the record straight and claim that her motives in perpetrating this fraud were altruistic because she was protecting her family. Maybe (if Levi and Bristol have any backbone between the two of them) Sarah will have no choice but to admit the hoax. In any case, she will be better off to get it over with and let them all get on with their lives. Otherwise, this will hang over her as she tries to pursue even greater ambitions. There should be no doubt at this point that the truth will come out. Better for Sarah to do damage control now, on her own terms, than to constantly fear the truth being revealed, perhaps at the most inopportune moment.

Anonymous said...

The flag pin is interesting. I hadn't thought about that. Let's look back at other photos and see if she was wearing a flag pin previous to the "birth" of Trig.

Anonymous said...


I will contribute points to both sides of the debate here. First, it seems as if Images 1 & 2 are both taken in the same building, right? Wouldn't all the doors be the same height and the pictures be hung about the same? Now, even yielding some alterations for the difference in perspective, it seems to me as if SP is a different height in Image 1 versus Image 2.

But ... I still have a hard time buying faking a pregnancy. I just can't find the motive. I can, however, find a motive for *hiding* the pregnancy as long as possible. I can imagine that (1) SP wouldn't want to dilute her authority by being pregnant and (2) she wouldn't want to appear unsexy in photos and (3) if she knew she was having a Down's Syndrome baby, there may have been - despite her claims to the contrary - some discussion as to whether or not she was going to abort, which circumstance she would certainly hide.

I agree that the woman is a dangerous liar in general and I agree that it's appropriate to do everything possible to expose her. If she didn't fake the pregnancy, she's the most careless of mothers...

Anonymous said...

I just looked through my file of SP photos, and she was wearing a flag pin regularly prior to Trig's birth. She had one on in the family portrait (probably from early fall 2007) and in photos taken on 2/26, 3/16 and 3/26 (including the "fun with photoshop" and "nail in coffin" photos).

I don't know if it matters, but I also noticed that the black stretchy top she has on in Photo 1 & 2 in the State House is the same one that she is wearing in photos with Elan Frank (where she is wearing the blue jacket). What struck me is that I don't think it's actually a maternity top. It looks like one of the styles that kids like my daughter wear; it has some gathers to accentuate the bustline and set it apart from the rest of the top -- but in Sarah's case the bustline section appears too narrow so the gathered part is all at the top of her bust only. I would think a maternity top would have an ample bustline, but this top does not appear to. I think it's a stretchy top but not a maternity top. In fact, I don't recall seeing any of SP's clothing that would definitely be categorized as maternity clothes. Another oddity, IMO.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 7:38pm,

"The other thing that stands out with the pictures is the flag pin.
Seems odd for some reason in April, but would have been more appropriate to be wearing in Aug right before your announcement as VP."

- That could have been a great catch, but I hate to blow your theory. SP seems to have been sporting that particular flag pin for a while, including in the March '08 pictures. Looks like with all her AIP ties and her national stage ambitions, she managed to carefully balance the American flag pin with the Alaska map earrings!

Hmm... lets keep looking for other clues though!

Diana said...

So...Sarah Palin decided to put Trig in a box...under the Christmas Tree as a present for her Family Christmas card this year??? What is she thinking? Wouldn't you just include him in a picture with the rest of the family when you have this kind of controversy and not make it a sideshow? I feel sorry for Trig. Someone in that home has horrible judgement!

Anonymous said...

There is a video of sarah being interviewed by a young reporter.He meets her at her house and wishes her a belated birthday.Her birthday is 11 Feb. They walk to her office.Sarah is wearing a jacket. She looks pregnant to me and to others who have seen the video.Nine weeks later she gives birth to Trig on 18 April.He is 1 month premature, so in this video Sarah is 25-26 weeks pregnant and looks 25-26 weeks pregnant.
on youtube as Welcome to the Sarah show.

month premature.So in the video she must be 25-26 weeks pregnant and she looks 25-26 weeks pregnant

Diana said...

Have we completely left behind the topic of the baby born to a "Amber" and Levi at Mat Su Hospital? It seems to have been dismissed and I don't understand why. Doesn't it seem really odd that this baby GIRL is named Jeremiah and wearing a blue outfit. I don't think hospitals provide baby it would have come from the family...and wouldn't they want to have their newborn baby girl in pink outfit instead of a blue outfit? Has this been completely ruled out??

I have reposted the link to the photo from previous poster Anon@1:27 with a smaller url.

Comparison photos:

Look at the sequence of pictures. I don't know why we would rule this out. I just don't see much difference. I think we have a few people who are saying the same thing. Can we review this or let me know why this has been ruled out?

Anonymous said...

You know interesting things regardless of who is the mother of Trig [stupid name by the way] is:

1. What mother treats her pregnancy like a dirty secret, where she does not tell a soul until she is forced to disclose the situation;

2. In regards to Bristol's supposed pregnancy [I think it's a lie and Palin will announce it was a miscarriage to cover up the original lie] what kind of person keeps the entire situation secret and treats Bristol's situation like another dirty secret.

3. For being all about family and trotting her family around as stage props, what's with Palin keeping her pregnancy and Bristol's as no longer events the public needs to know about. Palin's conduct is inconsistent with her "platform" regarding family values and with her expressed position back when she announced her pregnancy and Bristol's.

4. I have always been able to detect when someone is pulling a con or lying to the public. Conduct does not lie. I'll bet anyone willing to bet, Palin is pulling a con job here.

5. I suspect it is just a matter of time before the gig is up and Palin announces that Bristol miscarried. If I suffer any shock it will be if Bristol actually shows up in front of a camera with a newborn.

In any event, even if this is all legit about the pregnancies, Palin is one heck of an odd bird.

And taking into account Track's crimes, drug addiction; Bristol dropping out of high school and suffering a teen pregnancy; Levi Johnston dropping out of high school, his mom's drug dealing arrest; etc., etc., etc., Palin is a horrible mother too.

6. Just curious on this point: am I the only one who notices that Todd Palin and Bristol always look like they are pissed off and angry. Most of their photographs show them looking like they have something to hide. While mommy Sarah is a great actress in front of the camera it seems Todd and Bristol are incapable of hiding their feelings.

When police are investigating crimes they always look at how people react to whatever so to flush out persons of interest or suspects. I would look at Todd and Bristol and conclude they are hiding something.

In the end, if you look at everything, look at the forest instead of the trees kind of thing, including Sarah's conduct since early 2008; Todd Palin [who looks and acts like a white supremacist]; Bristol; Track; the Johnstons; and the scandals... it is fairly easily to conclude that that who is Trig's mom is another one of Palin's con jobs.

Anonymous said...

How about this...
Can anyone explain the particular wall positioning in #1?
Is this setting depicting some hex or octagonal wall figuration?

In #1 the door behind SP has no numbering on it.
In #2 both doors shown are numbered on the glass...206, 204.

In #1 the glass in the wall hanging frames have reflections.

The two hanging prints behind the reporter reflect two matted prints from another wall.

..IF that wall were to be the same wall as behind the two guys in #2 it would not show those two print reflections.

In #1...the wall directly to left of camera guy has a print reflection but unless that is some hex wall figuration I cant imagine where the reflection comes from.

The same short wall to the left has no direct light source despite a big standing light source quite close.
It has a frame shadow beneath it but there is over-head lighting for that.

The short left wall reflects 'the usual' stuff from that setting...wall trim, AND other frames, but it doesnt reflect any light.

Does that wall really exist in that setting??

How does that short wall come to position like that, slanted....Is the building built like this...with hex turns and walls?

How does the right wall go one direction and the left wall another...


teal said...

Audrey & Team:
I’m so glad to find this site! And now I’m searching the internet and trying to reach my AK contacts for info.

PHOTO 1 & 2 seem to be taken on the 2nd floor of the Leg. Building. The 'Victory' painting between the cam/man & the reporter [#1], is located on the 2nd floor, so is the Office for the Speaker of the House. I watched an online video on the history of the building and saw that very picture on a tour of the 2nd floor.

teal said...

Audrey & Team:
I’m so glad to find this site! And now I’m searching the internet and trying to reach my AK contacts for info.

PHOTO 1 & 2 seem to be taken on the 2nd floor of the Leg. Bld. The 'Victory' painting between the cam/man & the reporter [picture #1], is located on the 2nd floor, so is the Office for the Speaker of the House. I watched an online video on the history of the building and saw that very picture on a tour of the 2nd floor.

I searched for other pictures taken within the timeframe of March/ April…found Rep. Peggy Wilson's PERSONAL PAGE, her Photo Album features this picture.

Full size picture on same page, but here’s the link in case you just want to get right to it:

The 3/31/08 photo posting date? The bill was actually signed one day later - on April 1, 2008. Maybe they were just getting in a few pictures one day prior to the event?

NOTICE Palin does not look any where as ‘big’ as she does 13 days later [see picture #1]. Sure she is sitting, however her right arm seems to be pressing the jacket inward. Where she with child, it would drape over her stomach & curve outward, plus she would have to make adjustments for her arm to be in the position it's in.

Picture 1 & 2 seem to be one pose with ‘someone’ shooting SP from different angles.

aylablade said...

To the poster of the links of the pictures of Trig and the other baby. (Posted on Dec 28 @ 1:27pm). I did some more digging. Though the picture of the baby on lipstick alley and the pic of Trig do not match, take a look at the one on lipstick alley and the picture that posted about Trig when he was born.

The coloring is a bit off on the LA pic but it looks VERY similar to Trig's "birth pic".

Anonymous said...

Here is a tinyurl of the photos that another poster found on a house member's website:

Note the photo of SP sitting at the end of the table. Perhaps someone could enlarge and examine this more closely, as the drape of the jacket certainly does not reflect someone who is close to giving birth.

Jun said...

...her body should still be facing the camera person squarely....

To me it looks like Palin was waiting to speak to/respond to questions from the reporter after the reporter finished her introductory spiel. In the photo, it looks like the reporter is in the middle of that spiel -- she (the reporter) is facing directly into the camera and speaking.

Palin's facing somewhat towards the reporter because she's about to answer some questions from the reporter, i.e. interact with the reporter one-on-one, but Palin's not facing her completely because that would look weird on camera -- so she stood on a bit of an angle.

Palin's standing there with a smile on her face because she knows she might be in the camera's field of vision and wants to look pleasant. (Does that make sense?)

wayofpeace said...


my take is that one of the walls of the hallway (where the boxes are) continues on straight AND the other veers at 45 degrees.

that creates a kind-of lobby space where the elevators may be.


someone made the comment that i find interesting: SPs pose is identical in both pictures. as if she stood still, and someone took multiple pictures from all angles.

wayofpeace said...


i believe you've found another 'smoking gun' with that picture of the signing of the bill!

if that picture was taken just 2 weeks or so before picture 1, it violates reason and everything we collectively know as to gestation.

Half Sigma said...

"To me it seems that if picture #2 is not doctored, then there would be little reason to massively doctor #1 by inserting Palin from a different shot."

The theory would be that there were no photos clearly showing Sarah pregnant, so the need arose in August to create one. However, Palin was not in Juneau in August, so in order to get Sarah Palin to appear in a photo taken in Juneau, it was necessary to do some photoshop fakery.

Anonymous said...

to teal at 1:29

Your picture with Rep Peggy Wilson from 31 March 2008 was a great find! In the original high-resolution pic, the details are stunning!

I have uploaded the picture to my flickr photostream, where one will find several other pictures from February, March and April:

This specific picture is here:

In the photostream there are also some examples of this typical Palin lunacy...what about Trig dressed as Santa Claus under the Christmas tree in a box:


Anonymous said...

Brad, I agree that photo #2 is staged. If done in August, it required the cooperation of four people: Sarah, photographer, and two men, one of whom was working for her by then.

If photo #1 were staged at the same time, to show a side view of Sarah's belly, Ms. Gusty and maybe a different guy holding the video camera would have to be in on the deception. Instead I believe #1 is a composite, using a staged photo of Sarah taken at the same time as #2.

You point out the strange framing using the empty hallway as a backdrop. We know, I believe from Patrick's research, that Gusty did a shoot in an empty hallway at the end of the legislative seesion. So Sarah asks Gusty for a photo from that hallway shoot (before all evidence of it disappeared), and she has someone put her, full belly emphasized, in that photo. And now the empty hallway framing makes sense.

Gusty may not have known how her photo would be used, but she went along with it later and gave it to I agree with the poster who said that Factcheck needs to revise their opinion and say the photos weren't conclusive evidence, that they based their conclusion on Gusty's unsworn testimony. Really, the photos weren't good evidence, even if taken in April, since Gusty and Factcheck couldn't know if the belly was pads or baby (unless she was in on the scam then). -B.

Anonymous said...

Jun - I've thought that all along - Palin was positioned to do a Q&A after Gusty finished her intro. (I believe I wrote this comment in the original post of this photo). Those interviews are generally done from a side angle when there is only one camera.

I also don't get the suggestion that one can take a photo of Palin from the side and rotate it to be a front on photo for the 2nd one. A photo is one dimensional - not in 3-D and capable of being rotated. Scratching my head on that one.

Ennealogic said...

I've tried to find the article at that uses photo #1 and Gusty's statement as validation of SP's pregnancy in March 2008, but can't find it. Does anyone have a link?

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

EXIF data problem! Image 1.

F/3.3 will not give any depth of field . Focus range will be VERY short. Image 1 cant have been shot at F/3.3, IMHO.

ALso SP and the reporter appear slightly less focused that the pics on the wall behind them.

One pixel at a time we'll pick this apart!

I had 15 years of REAL photo darkroom experience and thi sjust aint how it works !.

Anonymous said...

Some VERY interesting comments following this article...

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

EXIF data problem with image 2.
Unles they used a tripod NO one can hand hold a camera and get a pic that focused at 1/20 of a sec with no flash or tripod. We dont know if a tripod was used.

Also f/3.5 is at ISO 400 NOT a portrait F stop or ISO setting.

not enuff depth of field to ensure focus from front to rear of subject.

Half Sigma said...


"F/3.3 will not give any depth of field . Focus range will be VERY short. Image 1 cant have been shot at F/3.3, IMHO."

F/3.3 on a small sensor camera like a Fuji Finepix S9000 is like F11 to F16 on a 35mm SLR.

That amount of DOF is reasonable given the slightly wider than normal focal length.

I wish I could identify the source of lighting in picture #2.

julia said...

Why on earth would anyone take the time or make the effort to e-mail this poor man's employer and demand he lose his job?

If necessary, I would gladly write something on his behalf in support of his contribution to this story. I'm quite sure that there are many others who read this blog who feel the same. Please let us know if we can help.

For those that disagree with Audrey's pursuit of the truth-why do you continue to read the blog? There are many places for you to indulge your views,(Drudge maybe?). Please go there...and leave us to soldier on.

Kevin said...

Two points. First, the expert's opinion states that the first photo definitely has been altered. ("Area B shows pixels around the neck region that clearly appear to have been altered") The opinion then states that it cannot be determined whether it is a composite image. (It "shows some signs of alterations consistent with an image that has been composited from different sources. However, due to the fact that the image available for analysis is only 1024 x 768, it is not possible to give a conclusive analysis.")

This requires clarification. To say there are "some signs of alteration" is significantly weaker than saying "pixels ... clearly appear to have been altered." Experts not in the business of forensic analysis have a natural reluctance to state a conclusion pointing to someone's wrongdoing, but that reluctance must be put aside if the conclusion is justified. This is why an ethical lawyer will spend time with a truthful expert witness reviewing his or her testimony in detail, so that both the witness and the lawyer are clear as to what the witness will and will not testify to, and why.

If I correctly understand the expert to say that the image has definitely been altered, but although the alterations are consistent with a composite image, that cannot be conclusively determined, three followup questions should be asked: "With what else might the observed alterations be consistent, other than creating a composite image?" "Could it have been conclusively determined whether the image was a composite if the original, higher resolution had been retained?" and, if so, "Would a professional photographer be expected to know that whether an image was a composite could be definitively determined at the original resolution but not at the resolution of the image left on the website?"

Second, "sjk from the belly of the plane" at 12/27 at 7;17PM (and again at 12/29 at 8:27) and others have commented on what I also mentioned in an earlier thread: in photo 1, the cameraman's shirt is in focus, the wood molding on the doorframe behind SP is in focus, while SP's face, at some distance between the two, is noticeably out of focus.

The expert only analyzed the digital data, not the optics. I understand there is a range of distance from the lens within which a subject will be in acceptable focus, referred to as "depth of field," e.g., 2-10 feet. Depth of field depends on the aperture setting or "f-stop." A smaller aperture gives greater depth of field, but because it restricts the amount of light hitting the film (in a digital camera, the CCD), it requires more illumination, a larger lens, longer exposure or more sensitive film. It is my non-expert understanding that aside from the extremely unlikely possibility of an appropriately-placed defect in either the lens or the CCD, it is physically impossible for two objects at different distances to be in focus while something at an intermediate distance is out of focus. (Examination would rule out movement as the cause of the blurring of SP's image, as the blurring would not be general, but would reveal the path of the motion causing the blur.)

The blurring is obvious to anyone who looks closely. If I am correct that this could not happen in an actual photo, the case is closed.

Anonymous said...

ennealogic at 8:14

Here are the factcheck links:

The second link is a video, the issue comes up after about a minute.


Anonymous said...

For the poster lookinf for the factcheck article


wayofpeace said...

anon at 7:51 AM

what we are speculating is that SP stood still, and a photographer took pictures of her from different positions.



just spend time at you FLICKR page.

THANKS for such a meticulous archive.

it helps to see the slide-show with the info window on. the impact of her supposed-state of pregnancy and the dates make the case for a hoax very persuasive.

wayofpeace said...


my take as to why SP's face is blurry /fuzzy may be that the full brunt of the light (from either the top of the tripod, the top of the camera, or the one bouncing from the wall) is falling directly on her. since she is the only one facing directly the light source.

this makes her face have an over-exposed feel. the same happens when a flash is used too close to the subject.

Anonymous said...

Never mind the hair, neckless, etc. Take a look at the area behind the left bottom hem of her coat. What is that? Looks almost like a picture, it certainly is not part of a hallway.

Anonymous said...

The blurriness of Sarah's image has nothing to do with the lighting -- it is a matter of the focus. I worked in photography for many years, and I agree the depth of field issue in this photo is perplexing. I note that the hallway and door behind SP is also out of focus, but that would be expected as it is farther away; but Gusty is far sharper than Palin, though not tack sharp -- and she is farther away also. The sharpest focus seems to be on the cameraman and the right-center of the image. I find myself wondering about an assymetry or defect of the lens, or some optical distortion, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know if the original image was cropped, perhaps from the right? In any case, the lack of focus on SP is strange and calls the authenticity of the photo into question on its own merit, let alone based on the forensic investigation's findings of some manipulation of the image.

I also would expect to see at least some sign of a small diffused shadow on the floor immediately behind Sarah, but can't discern one (but also can't discern one for Gusty).

One question for those of you who are more up on digital photography on the web than I am. Is the photo version posted on the site of any different resolution than that which was used in the forensic analysis? Eg, has that file been compressed? Even if so, it appears that they got their photo directly from Gusty, so would it be possible to request the original file and more complete data about the picture? Perhaps you could refer them to the "nail in coffin" and "fun with photoshop" photos as an impetus to address legitimate questions about whether their journalistic credibility was undermined in this case.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone tried using the way back machine on the governors page that was scrubbed??

Anonymous said...

Never mind...the way back machine stopped archiving the governors page in February. The last one I can't access, and the next one, well...can't get the photos to pull up. Darn, I was so excited about the way back machine!

Anonymous said...

Teal, is there really a new Speaker? Harris was still it in September.

Half Sigma, do we actually know that Sarah was not in Juneau in late August to have taken photo #2?

I suppose as soon as Trig arrived early and full size, she could have immediately had some pictures done suggesting that she had also been full size right before his birth, just in case she needed them as documentation later.

Choosing the hall outside the Speaker's office for the photo could be because that office is close to the Governor's office, or could have been because Harris was Speaker in mid-April, to attempt to reinforce the earlier date.

Anonymous said...

Audrey, love reading this blog; first time commenter today. I was looking at video footage of Palin at the Governor thingie in Dallas on April 17th, 2008, and, seeing as how she looks pregnant in that footage, I'm wondering, then, why would someone go to the trouble of faking pregnant photos of her? I'm not getting why that would be done if there is already footage of her available that shows her "clearly" pregnant. (Even if it's a fake pregnancy bump thing, which, IMHO is so completely probable given the messy birth story and weirdness about no pics immediately after the birth of Sarah and baby in her hospital gown-ed-ness. )But let me say when I first saw that pic of her and the reporter in the hall I thought "well, that's it, I'm wrong, she was really pregnant", but still thought it looked staged somehow. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought how easy it would have been to wear a fake bump for the public's benefit. I even wondered how she ordered one and how she snuck it into her house and whether the whole family was in on it or if she was snowing her own other children as well, given that she didn't bother to tell them until she told the rest of Alaskans. So, also (Palinism, sorry couldn't help myself) I figure if she can lie about all the stuff she lied about during the campaign, surely she could lie about being pregnant. I betcha any money she was then so po'd at Bristol that she was gonna make her pay by telling her that it was Bristol's turn to wear the baby bump (if B is not actually pregnant), or that Bristol would have to suffer THIS time through a public teenage pregnancy, and "you are GOING to marry that guy so Mommy can get elected VP and you OWE me for covering for you".......I suppose I've thought about this rather too much.

PS B's boobs at the convention in that grayish dress were truly something to marvel at. Looking back at those photos, makes you wonder if she had towels stuck in her bra so her breasts wouldn't visibly leak.

Also, when the announcement was made that Bristol was about 5 months pregnant, my immediate reaction was that that was just the latest cover story and that that would get them through the election, even if it turned out the "baby" was born much later.

Keep up the may be a family matter to regular families, but oh no sister, not when you are in public office, not when you don't believe in choice, not when you believe a victim of rape should give birth, not when you are so supposedly so pro-life and so supposedly supportive of your daugter's (current?) pregnancy--you don't get to make up stuff and expect us to just go along with it. And the "medical records" was a total hoot. I repeat, a total HOOT. Do they think people are that stupid??

Oh, and has anyone found any pregant pictures of Sarah while carrying Piper? It would seem that would be the best for comparison, since it would be closest in time.

Anonymous said...

Diana said..."So...Sarah Palin decided to put Trig in a box...under the Christmas Tree as a present for her Family Christmas card this year??? What is she thinking?"

At least she didn't put him in a manger. -B.

Margot said...

Has anyone looked at all the pictures and compared the hair? Pictures 1 and 2 seem to show hair that has been cut and perhaps thinned. Also it has highlights. The other pictures show her with a mound of hair and no highlighting.

Half Sigma said...

Response to Kevin above, and the quote from the report, "Area B shows pixels around the neck region that clearly appear to have been altered."

If a clone tool was used on the photo, it's highly suspicious given that this is presented as just a simple snapshot.

On the other hand, I have a hard time spotting the cloning. It would be nice if more experts, with real names, could confirm that the clone tool was used.

Anonymous said...

Way of Peace commented -

"my take as to why SP's face is blurry /fuzzy may be that the full brunt of the light (from either the top of the tripod, the top of the camera, or the one bouncing from the wall) is falling directly on her. since she is the only one facing directly the light source.

this makes her face have an over-exposed feel. the same happens when a flash is used too close to the subject."

If this is the case then surely she would have cast a shadow?

Steve said...

Thanks for keeping on this. In looking at the comments on Flkr for image 1 I came across the link to the Kodiak paper referencing the end of the 25th Legislature's Summer Session, late on the night of August 7th. Here is the link:

If this picture was, in fact, taken late on the night of 8/7, in would account for the reference to Bill McAllister as her press secretary. By that time he was her press secretary.

Don't know if this helps, but it would make more sense - and the picture even MORE suspect.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous says, "I was looking at video footage of Palin at the Governor thingie in Dallas on April 17th, 2008, and, seeing as how she looks pregnant in that footage, I'm wondering, then, why would someone go to the trouble of faking pregnant photos of her?"

A: She didn't look pregnant enough in Dallas to produce a baby >6 lb. in a few hours. So those photos weren't "proof." She had pads in Dallas to make her look a month, not a few hours, away from delivery.

Problem with photos #1 & #2 are she appears much more pregnant four days before Dallas than she does in Dallas, as well as inexplicably more pregnant than she did in pictures a week or two earlier. But the pictures did their job for her with Factcheck and the MSM, so what do I know? -B.

Sunshine1970 said...

Anonymous said @ December 29, 2008 8:27 AM Some VERY interesting comments following this article...

Whoa. Very interesting indeed. It'll be interesting to see what comes of that.

RE Trig under the tree. Except for the (creepy) wording, the photo is absolutely adorable. :-)

Is it really that unusual to dress a new baby up and stick it under the tree and take pics of them? My parental units did it to me for my first Christmas, (and have the -embarrassing- pics to prove it ;-)) I thought it was not too strange...Maybe they were just weird, then...?

Anonymous said...

Patrick, December 29, 2008 7:18 AM :
Can you check SP a bit more closely in the bigger pic you posted? To me, it looks like you can see one of her knees- as in she is crossing her leg, sitting at that table! I know *I* was not able to do that at that stage of my pregnancy, and *I* did not 'show' until I was 6 months along!

Anonymous said...

Has anyone asked Andrea Gusty or her bosses for additional comment in light of this evidence?

Also---I posted about this a while back: I asked if Alaska birth and death certificates weren't public record, and several people said they found a website where the birth and death certificates could be obtained for $35? Any followup on that?

Sunshine1970 said...

RE the shadows. It looks like the tripod light, which is standing off to the right hand side of the cameraman is pointed more towards the wall to diffuse the light some so when he points his camera with the light on top, onto his subjects it won't give as harsh of a shadow if he just used the one light on the camera. The hall lights are also on which will diffuse the light as well. The carpet is just too darned dark to be able to pick up any shadows cast by any of the players in the pic. It looks like there is a bit of a shadow where the reporter is standing, between her feet, but that's it.

Anonymous said...

As far as I can see, SP's hair looks exactly the same in both pictures 1 and 2. Every hair is exactly in the same place. Bangs, curls, etc. Would hair spray preserve all that? I think there were pictures taken of her at different angles, and then the pictures were put into both settings.

Dan Carpenter in picture 2 is not carrying anything except a pencil in his pocket. McAllister has a folio. Carpenter has on a suit, and the videographer has on a dress shirt. There must have been some event where press people dressed up. The videographer probably removed his tailored jacket to be able to hold the camera. Maybe in the process his shirt became untucked.

I would think that Carpenter would have closed his jacket if he was posing with the governor or any other woman.

sandra in oregon

wayofpeace said...

anon @ 10:15 AM said,

"If this is the case then surely she would have cast a shadow?"

you're right.

the matter of no shadows is a curious one.

if you look at the spotlight on top of the camera: it shows that it's on. take a look also at the v-shape of bright light on the wall right next to the camera.

i've been trying to figure out where that light comes from.

from the light on top of the tripod. or redirected from the one on the camera?

THERE SHOULD BE SOME STRONG SHADOWS but the only ones--albeit faint-- are under the picture frames.

trish in SW FL said...

I was over at Mudflats, reading the comments on Sarah as #2 "Most Admired Woman" poll, and saw a comment from Wasilla Maternity Nurse @08:28:24.

S/he claims BP had the baby "last night", at 12:27 am.

not sure if there's any truth to what this "nurse" said or not. Anyone heard anything yet?

Anonymous said...

The information regarding the camera that took this picture is incorrect - the Fuji S9000 is not a midrange digital SLR, it's not an SLR at all instead it's what tends to be referred to as a 'bridge camera'. While it may look like an SLR internally it's quite different as an SLR has a reflex mirror (which is what the term SLR refers to) to give it an optical viewfinder rather than electronic. Although it doesn't have to the case, SLRs normally have much larger sensors which is true in this case.

The S9000 was not a professional high end camera as by the time it was released digital SLRs had dropped considerably in price and were affordable for serious amateurs. The camera was popular amongst amateurs but not professionals.

There is some relevence to this, the smaller sensor of the S9000 has far greater depth of field than a larger sensored SLR. Also there will be more noticeable noise at ISO 500.

Anonymous said...

The "Wasilla Maternity Nurse" has an IP adddress in New York, so I think we should not make much of what she says.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 374   Newer› Newest»