Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Will the Anonymous Poster

Who has posted numerous comments about the dating/ exif info of this photo please email me at:

info@palindeception.com

Thanks

Audrey

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well since you are following this closely are there pictures of Rristol with a big tummy yet since the baby is expected to be here sometime this month? Also is she giving birth out of wedlock or did they think people will just forget the whole story ever happened? An inquisitive mind wants to know.

mary g. said...

I doubt this person is going to contact anyone. He or she is just trying to cast doubt on an immense accumulation of evidence. This may be a good stategy for Lionel Hutz, attorney at law, but wringing your hands and tearing up the photo because of a failing battery or daylight savings time is ridiculous.
We await the next crisis post with interest...
Normally the procedure I have observed on this website and blog is that a camera date on a photo is only taken to be definitive if other evidence corroborates that date. So take your eyes off the numbers and look at the photo. mary g.

Morgan said...

Mary G, they may be trying to cast doubt or they may very well be a thoughtful person asking thoughtful questions.

I'm sure we have Palinites here, but let's not forget there are a lot of good, objective minds reading this blog as well.

Bottom line: Audrey is seeking the truth. If answering these questions verifies it then we're all the better for it.

Anonymous said...

Yes, and then if s/he can explain how they got all the same teenagers from the supposed March of 2007 event to come back to the same place in March 2008 (as verified by the video, the Juneau newspaper photo, AND the Flickr photostream) and stand behind the governor again in the same order while wearing the same outfits without having aged at all, that would be great. I'll just be waiting here for that.

Or maybe instead I'll use my power of deductive reasoning to realize that this picture is from March of 2008. Heavens, if these are Palin supporters, maybe we DON'T have that much to worry about...

Mary g. said...

To Anonymous and to Morgan: It is true that debate and a questioning attitude do not signify opposition. I am just surprised that a photo that is clearly part of a series and part of a bigger, public story can suddenly be seen as a fake.
I also want to say that, when Palin raised her hand in an oath-like way on t.v. in Alaska right after the elections saying that she is Trig's mother, I believe her. She IS his mother--now. Not biologically and in the irresponsible way she described it, but his mother nonetheless. There are many ways to be a mother and a parent, but none should be bolstered by lies and mystification. The truth will not take Trig from her, but it might get her and the supporters of her policies to see life in all its complexity. Mary G.

Anonymous said...

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

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

This was openly discussed for example in the Huffington Post:

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

The Huffington Post commented:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick

Anonymous said...

Yeah, i just can't figure out which is more likely, that two identical events happened on the same day in 2007 and 2008, or that the exif data showing 2007 could have the wrong date-stamp. I LOL at anyone who thinks this is from 2007!!

Anonymous said...

Patrick-

You are an absolute star for your incredibly well-written and evidence-based posts and sleuthing...just wanted to state that for the record.

And MaryG-- I laughed out loud when I read your "Lionel Hutz" reference! Hilarious! He is exactly the "type" that I picture as the bumbling legal minds 'helping' Palin with this diabolical cover up!

Similarly...whenever my husband and I see "Ted" on Scrubs, I always say "there's Sarah's secret lov-ahhhh!" ; )

Liz
Austin, TX

Anonymous said...

Thanks a lot, Liz from Austin, this is very kind of you!! I will continue to do my very best! :-)

But I would be nothing without my dear Kathleen! ;-)

By the way: Cajun Boy in the City has done an excellent post about the Palin-picture today!!

Here:

http://cajunboyinthecity.blogspot.com/2008/12/question-does-this-look-like-woman-who.html

Patrick

Anonymous said...

Let me state, first off, that I am NOT a Palin fan. However I think she could be pregnant based on that photo. I found out I was pregnant with my first at 2 months, in September. I delivered in April (3 weeks early). In September i weighed 154 pounds, and was then on Weight Watchers for the whole pregnancy. I went in to labor at about the same weight and looked hardly pregnant at all. After giving birth I weighed 142. Sarah Palin looks to have that chubby look about her chin that pregnant women get. And her body looks a little chubby too. The fact that she is not huge does not preclude the fact that she could be pregnant, near delivery. Do we have any photos showing how large she got with any previous pregnancies? She's had several.

Anonymous said...

i'd like to remind anyone new here to please look not only through the blog posts, put click over to the main site.

audrey has many of the photos and information people have been bringing up as questions right there already. stuff like previous pregnancy pictures, real and disproved for comparison (to each other.)

just click the purple link at the top right which says "site main page"

or go here (but clicking has gotta be easier):

http://www.palindeception.com/

luna

Scott said...

http://regex.info/exif.cgi

Here's an online exif tool. When i ran the photo on it there was no information that showed any timestamp.

Anonymous said...

The final, definite proof has arrived - we don't have to worry about the date of the pictures any more! (just in case the multiple photo and video evidence was not sufficient for you...)

The user "surfdaf", who had originally uploaded the picture on flickr in April 2008, has confirmed in public that the pictures were taken on the 26 March 2008:

See the public comments:

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

AND

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

Patrick

Anonymous said...

Patrick,

Can Surfdaf confirm if Sarah looked Pregnant? What her thoughts were on Sarah's condition? Do you think we can get this information out of her? Do she have more pictures? Thanks for doing all you do. You have been much help to us all.

Anonymous said...

patrick,

thanks, you always post the links we need.

however, i was not able to make the link to "surfdaf's" original flickr shot work. when i found it by other means i saw a few response comments (3 at this point) by others, not her. i did see her response to the second, Juneau Empire (newspaper, online picture) post at you second link.

i have been able to capture the news video and associated newspaper pictures/article text too.

i would love to know the opinions of people who were there that day as well, but i hope no one drags "surfdaf" or her family into this if they aren't interested.

they were only documenting a vacation, so please don't overload them with comments or anything ridiculous (that's for all visitors here, not you patrick.)

i have saved the caption from the Brian Wallace article & photo @ the Juneau Empire, and it lists the names of all the teenagers appearing in the shot and their teacher. the video clip states they will be the first senior class since the enactment of the bill, so it is a safe bet they are 17-18 years of age and graduated this past fall. however, noting audrey's "new policy" post on reporting of the names of "myspace minors" i am not posting it here. maybe some of these people have opinions of the day they could share. i don't have the time to search for them, but the caption is public, they agreed to give their names and pose for the paper. maybe they know something from direct observation of the event?

luna

Anonymous said...

correction:

remembering that academic years run like "2008-2009" i assume those kids are yet to graduate, but are currently in their senior year at juneau-douglas high school .

luna

Anonymous said...

I can most certainly say beyond a doubt that Patrick will not be in the least bit interested in trying to "get information out of her". He will be polite and open in any questions that he poses - as he always is.

Kathleen

Anonymous said...

Patrick was very tired and did not link correctly to both pictures and the comments - so here they are for all to enjoy!


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

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

Kathleen (it is true....he is nothing without me!)

Anonymous said...

patrick/kathleen-

please don't take offense. my post said:

"they were only documenting a vacation, so please don't overload them with comments or anything ridiculous (that's for all visitors here, not you patrick.)"

-note the "not you patrick." that was not sarcasm. i really meant it for all/new visitors. i thank you both again for putting in great posts and links. i literally have thought "ugh, it'll be a chore to post the this many site-sources as a response...but i'd be worth it." and i scroll down and find you've done it.

thank you. i am being sincere.

luna1580

Anonymous said...

here is surfdaf's comment (from Patrick's site) regarding that day :
?hhhmmm . . . to make things more fun, I have to say in the interest of full disclosure, that I was a labor and delivery nurse for many years. I cannot positively say that she was NOT pregnant in this pic. it was common knowledge that day, March 26, 2008 that she was "pregnant with her fifth child", as told to me by the museum docent upon the Governor's arrrival. she may have been wearing a binder, and she does look much more tired and "puffy" than she has in the past few months on the campaign trail.

The baby was born mid April? one month early? which would make her 7 months here? though I have to say he looked like quite a robust and fullterm newborn on the campaign trail "

Anonymous said...

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

Here is the link:

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

Patrick

GraceR said...

"I cannot positively say that she was NOT pregnant in this pic."

What is this supposed to mean? Surfdaf was there and saw her,right? Either she looked pregnant or she didn't (from various other angles which Surfdaf would've observed).

Anonymous said...

i think it's very odd that the alaska state museum docent informed the onlookers "she (the governor) is pregnant with her fifth child." upon sarah's arrival.

shouldn't it have been obvious she was pregnant?

hadn't it been publicly announced and in all the alaska press more than 2 weeks ago?

also, what does it matter? can't she sign a piece of paper, preggers or no?

it just seems extremely odd. it seems to me the only reason to do such a thing would be to cement the idea of "pregnant, of course" in everybody's minds. doing so would even alter the way some people would remember it now, more than half a year later. try to remember something you did at the end of march and the people there -it's much easier to remember an announcement of something than just noticing something, if you took the announcement as true at the time. if you see the governor and you KNOW she's pregnant (because a docent -who's very job is to give visitors facts- just told you) you're not going to spend as much time forming your own opinion of whether or not she's pregnant from your own visual observation, it's just the way the mind works.

luna

GraceR said...

"i think it's very odd that the alaska state museum docent informed the onlookers"

It sounded more like the docent was having a personal conversation with Surfdal at the time, no? Maybe Surfdal told the docent of her occupation as a labor/delivery nurse and the docent made the comment about the governor's being pregnant.
If a conspiracy went that far down the chain, I think we would've had something more concrete by now!

Anonymous said...

@ grace r

it wouldn't take "a conspiracy" for the governor to ask the employees of alaska state museum to inform the visitors of her pregnancy. it was already announced publicly and they are state employees at an institution she was essentially doing a PR appearance for.

so i'm not implying that "even the docents were helping her fake it," that's ridiculous. i think they probably reminded people of the pregnancy because they were asked to, by palin or her staff. this would not make them part of any coverup -the state officially knew sp was pregnant already, re-announcing this fact wouldn't be "a conspiracy" unless the docents had proof she was not pregnant and agreed to make the announcement anyway, which is pretty much impossible.

i just think it's an odd "reminder" to give the crowd (or one member of it) that had nothing to do with the event and would normally not be mentioned at all.

luna

Ellie said...

I agree w/you Luna, very good observation. That is extremely odd. I doubt a docent would be in on it, but I can see Sarah with a smiling (as in I'm-so-proud-to-be-a-mom-again)face asking her to announce her pregnancy, any docent would have said "You betcha!" ;)

Anonymous said...

Why would a State Museum Docent announce that the governor is pregnant? I don't get it.
As to the quip of surfdaf that she could not say that SP was NOT pregnant... You sometimes don't know if a woman is PREGANANT or FAT - so, you DO NOT ask a woman if she is pregnant - you could get hit with who-knows-what, if the lady in question is CHUBBY!

Anonymous said...

Scott 3:44

I just put three photos thru the exif tool (three I KNOW the date-taken info on) and it was wrong on 2 out of 3. Way wrong.

I mean the tool you listed above:

http://regex.info/exif.cgi

Have you tested this tool?

--Amy