What leads to this seemingly illogical statement? In short, how birth certificates are handled in the face of an adoption. I have researched this with the help of an associate who has interviewed an Alaskan attorney who handles adoptions. The path to adoption - and the paperwork involved - is as follows. This outlines what would happen in the case of a closed, private adoption, with the parents and birth mother knowing each other prior to the birth, and making some of the arrangements before the baby is born.
1. A baby is born. An attendant at the birth (can be any facility staff person, not necessarily the doctor) files a “Report of Live Birth.” The birth mom fills out the form with her name and the name of the father. Other info includes the name of the facility and the name of the doctor, if there is one. This document is confidential. In the case of a subsequent adoption, only parties to the adoption ever see this, like the parents (birth and adoptive) and their attorneys. This report is saved for 100 years but it is impossible to get because it is confidential. The adoptive parents would take the baby home from the hospital.
2. There is a hearing within a week or two. This proceeding is confidential.
3. A decree of adoption is issued. Once again, this is a confidential document.
4. A birth certificate with the child’s new name and adoptive parents’ names is issued by the state. You cannot tell by looking at that birth certificate that the child has been adopted so even if it is released, it would be of little value. The birth certificate contains ONLY the following information: the child's (new) name, the adoptive parents' names, the date, and place (city and state) of his birth. Here's an example of an "heirloom" birth certificate you can order for an Alaska birth. It's more decorative than a regular one, but contains all the same info.
Different people born at different times in different places may have other information on their birth certificates. When I was born (long long ago and far far away) the state in which I was born seems to have combined the "birth certificate" and the "report of live birth." My birth certificate contains not only my parents' names, my name, time, place, and date, of course, but the hospital of my birth, my parents' marital status, the number of my mother's previous pregnancies, and the attending doctor's signature as well.
Since the beginning of my investigation into this I have assumed that, if Trig is not Sarah and Todd Palin's biological child, by the time of the campaign, he would have already been long since legally adopted. Therefore, releasing his birth certificate would prove nothing, since it would list his adoptive parents' name, his name, the date, and place of his birth. It would be tell us nothing.
But then I started thinking about this recently. OK, maybe that's true, but then.... why NOT release it? It might not be proof positive for those of us who understand the adoption procedure, but it would have still given the Palins political points. "Look, [eyes rolling] we released the damn birth certificate. They asked for it..." [and many did] "... and we gave it to them. What more can these loonies want?" And those who might have tried to explain about the nuance of adoption law would, at least to many, appear as if they were again splitting hairs. I'll say it again... the Palins could have gotten a fair amount of mileage out of releasing it.
But they didn't. After numerous calls from multiple sources for many months, they still have not. Why not, when they should have had nothing to lose, and potentially at least something to gain? When the document should contain nothing but the names of Sarah and Todd Palin, and the information that Trig was born on April 18th, 2008 in Palmer, Alaska?
Well, here's one answer. Here's why my original statement was that, while releasing it would not have proved anything conclusively, NOT releasing it may be telling us a lot.
What changes when the child is adopted, from the "Report of Live Birth," to the "Birth Certificate?" The baby's name and the parents' names. That's all. What does not change, CANNOT change? The date and place of the birth.
If the child that we now know as Trig Paxson Van Palin was NOT born in Palmer Alaska on April 18th, 2008, his birth certificate would show us that, no matter who the parents are. Could this be the reason no birth certificate has ever been released? Not because they won't, but because they can't?
754 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 754 Newer› Newest»BlueTx,
It is also the case that no one is disputing Trig's presence in the hospital on April 18th. That has never been questioned here. If he had been born to Bristol on April 17th, it would not preclude photographs from being taken on April 18th.
Blue Tx,
The pictures/item in the ADN has been discovered extensively on other posts. Check it out and then come back to discuss.
To 'B'
I thought someone might ask that.
Faking a pregnancy only makes sense when the plotters want to disguise the source of the infant and the woman who is pregnant wants to keep the baby. Otherwise, if the birth mother changes her mind at any time, you've got a real problem.
(The other reason to fake a pregnancy, because the woman intends to steal a baby from a stranger and has to explain where the baby came from -- a plot in more than one police drama -- doesn't apply in this discussion, I hope.)
The circumstances must also be embarassing for both the pregnant woman and the one covering for her if the true source of the baby were discovered; i.e., a pregnant teenager.
'B' is correct that faking a pregnancy only makes sense if the hide-the-preggo-and-adopt-the-baby ruse would not work within the family the same way it would with an outsider. It can't be the hide part of the scheme that they knew would fail, so the adopt part must be the reason for faking.
So the question becomes:
Why didn't SP say that their family was expanding because they were adopting a child?
or
Why didn't SP wait for the baby to arrive, and then say that the family adopted a child?
For starters, either scenario raises lots of questions (likely answers in parens).
Whose baby is it? (Private adoption)
What made you decide to adopt a child? (There are so many needy children)
Who handled the adoption? Was it through an agency? (no comment, because any details would lead to more questions for which there wouldn't be answers)
Was the baby born in Alaska? (no comment, because any details would lead to more questions for which there wouldn't be answers)
Very quickly, the questions surrounding the adoption announcement, either before or after the fact, need truthful answers or suspicion would immediately turn to her daughters anyway. Since rumors were already swirling about Bristol, nobody would believe an adoption story without details.
It is still an open question of what triggered SP to announce the pregnancy (fake or real) in early March. That's very late to start faking, but very, very, very late for a real pregnancy. That's why I've concluded that if she faked it, it must have been a last resort.
With rumors already in place, the hide-and-adopt strategy was already out. Only a convincing faked pregnancy would silence them. As we can see, it wasn't convincing enough, even in April before all of us starting watching, but nobody would have bought an adoption.
Therefore, I propose this sequence of events:
1) Palin daughter (Willow or Bristol) gets pregnant; they decide are going to have and keep the baby.
2) Rumors of Bristol being pregnant spread.
3) SP denies rumors, but still must explain the baby when it arrives.
4) SP decides that only if she claims the baby as hers will she be able to hide the source of the infant.
This scenario aligns with all facts and reasonable motivations. Substituting anyone but one of SP's daughters as the birth mother, and the sequence of events leading to faking rather than hide-and-adopt fails.
Dangerous
If SP faked her pregnancy for the extra attention -- which is a possible motive, however stupid -- then she really is a loon.
But how did she know she would end up with a baby? And why the crazy trip from Texas to Alaska without a good story?
Too many people, including Dr. CBJ, would have to cover for a total fabrication serving only SP's personal interests. I don't think that would happen.
Dangerous
Alex:
Good points re Sherry.
Also, the original April-ish rumors involved Bristol as the mother.
Serious question (not rhetorical) to those who believe Willow or Sherry is the mother:
Are you aware of any internet rumors (outside of this blog, preferably from AK sources) supporting your suspicions?
If so, Audrey could perhaps add those links to her homepage.
I've only seen Willow/Sherry speculation on palindeception.com.
The "Udub" in the editor's blog is me.
Every since I found that ADN blog, I've been following Pat's back-and-forth with Sarah regarding the suspended attempt at a Trig rumour story. Pat seemed puzzled as to why a few basic documents or verifications couldn't be supplied by the Palin's to end this conspiracy issue. I simply gave him my take, based upon the ever-rising bar of acceptability on this blog site, that many doubters will now accept fewer, if any, forms of proof. And they most certainly will not accept a reporter's story in which she has obtained some quotes and has viewed some records and has determined that they exist and appear authentic.
The proper framing of just who was driving the interest specifically in the Trig issue, was important to note too. The bulk of the general public and media (and internet) has not really cared about the Trig question since last September. People can speculate as to why, but public/media attention on Sarah has been focused on many other issues involving her, other than Trig's birth.
With the main exception of Andrew Sullivan, only a few internet sites have retained ongoing interest in the Trig story. The followers of these sites and of this storyline are the main people who Pat has noted as persistently keeping the conspiracy story alive.
Therefore, any story that he pursued would be in reaction to the demands and the interests of this group of people. My point was that if his rationale was that the Palin's should cooperate by providing additional documentation in order to stop the conspiracy talk, the proof that he sought would have to be sufficient to do so.
Given that the level of required proof for many doubters has evolved to DNA testing, or even the fact that nothing will truly convince them, his rationale of providing satisfaction for the conspiracy believers seems doomed to failure.
Pat seems inclined to agree that any such story would have likely failed to satisfy many of the doubters, but that it was worth at least exploring. He doesn't have much choice since further proof from the Palin's doesn't appear forthcoming.
So again, as long as the current dynamics of this story don't change (i.e. more internet or media involvement), the Palin's will be unlikely to ever provide more information than they have already.
I think Mercedes's myspace pictures and comments hold the answers. While her pictures were not private, they were not intended for PUBLIC viewing. She joyously shared the baby pictures with her friends, even tenderly and lovingly giving the baby a cute name, TriggyBear. We might not know what Mercedes meant by "my baby brother" but I'm sure her best friends knew the meaning. The only comment on that picture from a friend said he's "gonna be such a stud."
Like his father, Levi?
SHELBY says,
"I would think a picture of baby Tripp in Bristol's arms with proud daddy Levi at her side.."
yes, wouldn't that be the most normal thing in the world to do?
and that is precisely the problem: NOTHING about this from the get-go has been anywhere near normal.
which is why our collective BS antenna picked up the stink!
This is a bit off the subject, but has everyone here seen the latest SP story. Mother Jones is reporting that she was apparently not invited to a special dinner for McCain next Monday night. Speculation is that McCain did not want her there. When will the new SP Whinefest begin?
Shelby says, "In my opinion ALL evidence points to the scenario that Palin covered for Bristol by faking a pregnancy for a couple of months. Can anyone point to any evidence that disputes that scenario?"
1. A woman at the AHA luncheon mid-Feb. said she had to change the HEAD table when Palin showed up with all three daughters and not just Piper. No photos have been found to confirm.
If true, Bristol would have been seen indoors for a lunch when she was 6-7 months pregnant. Maybe she took her coat off after she sat down. Still, hard to hide.
This is why Dangerous wisely has kept reminding us of that luncheon. (Also disputes the idea that Bristol had Trig much earlier than 4/18.)
2. All the evidence that points toward Sarah giving birth, which I believe is down to Sarah's statements, her doctor's statements to a journalist, and mainly the signed statement purportedly from the doctor on election eve. Maybe some weasel words, but it seems to say she was Sarah's doctor when Sarah had Trig.
This is all evidence, but not conclusive evidence.
3. The obviousness of the story. Sarah telling McAllister last Feb. or Mar. that the rumors (he hadn't heard and didn't bring up) about Bristol being pregnant weren't true. Sarah mentioning Bristol's pregnancy in the RNC statement as proving Sarah gave birth to Trig. Sarah knowing that her RNC statement now requires proof of Tripp's birth, but not giving it.
Yes, seems like Bristol as Trig's mom is obvious, but then I worry it is so obvious that that is what she wants us to think, to lead us away from the truth. Ha!
I agree that an adoption would have elicited questions but in that case the adoptive parents can rightfully ask that respect be given to the privacy of the issue. I think most people would respect that and there will always be speculation and leaks but then you dignify that with silence.
Sarah could have avoided this controversy by addressing the issue at the beginning. If it was a non-issue, she could have laughed and pulled out the birth certificate, a bunch of photos taken in the hospital, and announced that the hospital staff have permission to confirm that she gave birth to Trig.
She didn't do any of that.
She still has made no valid effort to address the issue.
She has made certain that Trig will never really know who his mother is.
I think a private adoption was arranged for Bristol's baby but it fell through when prenatal testing revealed DS. That's when the family knew they would keep the baby and Sarah donned the belly pads.
No matter what questions would have been asked of Sarah as to why she decided to adopt a DS baby, many voters would have felt she voluntarily chose to do something that would detract from her job as Governor. Fewer would fault her for an unexpected pregnancy and baby with DS.
B and Dangerous-
The source of the comment about the two babies was People magazine, quoting the host of the party. Most of that post was about the PM article. I think everyone should read it! It has many bizarrities.
I agree that Bristol is more likely than Willow, but I have not found compelling evidence that Sarah would do this for anyone else. I personally do not think Willow is the mother. And furthermore, some of the recent posts clarifying how early Sarah was made aware that she was in the running make it seem more plausible that she was ready to appear squeaky clean and would consider Bristol's pregnancy serious enough to do this.
If Sarah badly needed to cover for a sister or prevent her having an abortion, I think she would simply have arranged to adopt the baby.
Much of this pregnancy was over the winter/early spring months in Alaska. Is it possible that Bristol managed to hide it from everybody until quite late, then the rumours started and SP was 'panicked' into the fake pregnancy? That would explain why it was announced so late in the day and she didn't manage to prepare well enough to pull it off? The dates might have been muddled and SP thought she had an extra month. But Bristol went into labour while SP was in Texas, delivered a full-term baby on April 17 or 18 and SP had to come up with the mad dash. So Trig became a good size premature baby. I think the big surprise to all of them was the fact that he had Down's Syndrome.
I don't think Bristol was/is pregnant with Tripp at all. Watch how the Tripp story develops in the next few weeks. SP's hysteria and finger pointing about anonymous bloggers and the media will be explained.
Blue TX, all the theories of an earlier birth for Trig by Bristol or another have an official handoff to Sarah at MatSu hospital during the night of 4/17-18. And an official announcement of that day. And pictures with the grandparents at the hospital. Trig was there. Whether he was just born there, or born before midnight, or born a week before and brought there, or transferred from NICU in Anchorage then, we don't know.
So those pictures are not inconsistent with an earlier birthdate. In fact, many think Trig does not look like a newborn there, so that the photos actually point to an earlier birthdate.
I hope your question was sincere since I took the time to answer it.
To quote Sarah P. enough...
'At this point, I do not blame my doctor for not wanting to comment further, and I join her in saying enough is enough, I will no longer continue to try to prove that Trig is my son.'
My personal interpretation of that statement is:
"I, Sarah Palin, will no longer continue to try to prove that Trig is my son because obviously if I could have I would have and it's pretty obvious that I can't!
Also, my doctor has told me 'enough is enough' and has refused to participate in the charade any longer because she has decided that my political future is not a fair trade off for her medical license and reputation."
I believe this is why we have not and will not see any more 'proof' regarding Sarah Palin and her son Trig.
Sarah would not have faked a pregnancy if no baby were on the way for her to show as her own.
The issue was, given a baby on the way, should she fake a pregnancy or announce an adoption.
***GENTLE MODERATION REMINDER***
If your comment hasn't "popped up" yet, ask yourself if perhaps you broke our basic rules of civility when you wrote it. Please remember that this blog has an owner, and only that person has the right to suggest that someone should or should not be commenting here. Also please remember that this is not an echo chamber and people are welcome to come here and question our logic so long as they do it nicely.
Please don't make me any grumpier than I already am. If you must disagree with someone, fine, just try not to be pissy about it.
SP is appearing on the first episode of Glenn Beck's new show on Fox next Monday at 4 p.m. Central Time. I wonder what city she will be in for this interview?
I don't know Craig -
I think this follows the 80/20 rule. Probably a 20% proof (perhaps just a birth certificate and statement from CBJ) would satisfy 80% of the doubters.
While an 80% proof (i.e. birth certificate, statement from CBJ, attending physicians, a couple other nurses, a family member or two, early spring photos of a clearly NON-pregnant Bristol, apology over poor judgement for wild ride (or explanation of hyperbole of same) would probably satisfy the other 20%.
There will likely always be 1% that would not be convinced - no matter what. On the other hand, I'm sure there are a good chunk of SP supporters who would continue to believe she DID give birth (in heroic fashion) to Trig even if CBJ handed us her uterus in a jar and the records of the hysterectomy dated pre-2008.
80 proof, 20 proof - sounds like I'm drinking - but as much traffic as this blog is getting, I still don't think 95% (99%?) of the U.S. population is really giving this ANY thought at all.
However, that will certainly change as things heat up and SP starts to self-destruct. If this blog has, say 250 regular readers and only 20% of them need hard-core proof, that is only 50 people (and not necessarily even their families as Amy1 can attest!).
If SP had any brains right now, she would pull out some REAL proof before there are 50,000,000 people clamoring for some real proof!
oBlueT, 1:39 : We have covered that story way back when already. Go through some of the older blogs, and you will see the comments.
Remember: The reporter saw the Heaths, and Trig, but they did NOT see SP - she was supposedly 'resting in a nearby room'. So... THE REPORTER DID NOT SEE SP!
Good one, Shelby!
I think that poster B could be right and that Bristol was pregnant and that late stage ultrasound discovered that Trig had Down Syndrome and the pre arranged adoption fell through. While all of the websites regarding diagnosing down syndrome thru ultrasound make claims that it is possible it is still not a sure thing. BUT it could have provided enough proof for the adoptive family not to have wanted to go forward with the adoption. Thus Sarah announced pregnancy and started to appear pregnant (sometimes). She does state repeatedly that God chose her and Todd to be the parents for Trig, so who can question what words God may have whispered in her ear to make her make the choices that she did. I do think that Sarah and Todd love Trig and hopefully they can find the time in their busy schedules to properly provide for his special needs.
Craig said, "The proper framing of just who was driving the interest specifically in the Trig issue, was important to note too. The bulk of the general public and media (and internet) has not really cared about the Trig question since last September. People can speculate as to why, but public/media attention on Sarah has been focused on many other issues involving her, other than Trig's birth."
I hope Pat skipped your comments to him.
SP has driven this story since the campaign ended, and not just by failing to give proof about Trig and her. She has repeatedly--to Susteren and Ziegler at very minimum--brought up the issue herself. Always cloaked as a swipe at the media/blogs, but brought up nonetheless. Had she been silent, I would have remained uninterested; I'm someone who had totally accepted the Bristol-is-pregnant-so-there story throughout the campaign. But she wasn't silent, and her mentions and the way she said them led me to the Internet...and this site...and you people who are similarly piqued and annoyed with the way things just don't fit. So don't go asserting that we/blogs/the wussy ADN are driving this story.
excellent commentary by Eric Boehlert: Palin, the press, and her pregnancy.
Here's the address:
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901130015?f=h_column
here's a snip:
That Palin's still steaming about the episode is not surprising. Lots of people both online and off, and from the right and the left, considered the fake pregnancy story to be one of the low points in the campaign. Unfortunately, in her role as press critic, Palin misremembers the media's role. Or she's consciously trying to rewrite history.
Because the simple fact is the mainstream media did not spread the pregnancy story. Nor, contrary to Palin's accusation, were liberal bloggers responsible for it. Most A-list bloggers actively avoided the story, and some online writers even publicly decried the rumor when it first surfaced. It was actually some over-eager diarists (i.e. blog readers who are free to write pretty much whatever they want online) who helped hatch and amplify the story. And it was one high-profile mainstream blogger, from outside the liberal netroots community, who stepped forward to promote it.
Did any one else e-mail the ADN after cajunboy's post in October? I did and I got a one line e-mail in response, "There is no story."
I thought it was strange at the time that an editor would take the time to respond. I imagine that most papers get bombarded with random requests and leads and usually just ignore them. Why not just post on the front page (as they did) but actually respond. FROM THE EDITOR'S E-MAIL. Why not get some lowly intern to do it if at all.
It almost makes me wonder if Pat was afraid. We now know that there was at least some story they were pursing. His e-mail almost is if he is trying to take every step to prove they are not doing a story. Was he threatened? Was he worried that someone would suggest he hadn't gone out of his way to dispel the rumors?
If there really was no story, why respond?
Maybe Sarah is a little panicky about Sherry Johnston's trial.
Keep in mind we know very little about Sherry's charges. The oxycontin may have been legally prescribed, and she was caught in a sting. So, she could have been set up.
If God chose Sarah to parent Trig, why didn't God provide better belly pads?
Jeanie, I love your 80/20 rule explanation to Craig, because I love the 80/20 rule, period. It explains so much, so often
bluetx:
"Sarah won this round."
I didn't realize there was something to win here? What I see is that there is a truth. The truth is Palin lied or Palin didn't lied.
Many, many of her supporters don't care if she lied and I'm sure many of them can even rationalize it as being 'okay' if she lied. Some even might commend her for lying.
However, unfortunately for Palin, many of us are not her supporters, do not want her anywhere near our government or our rights and therefore won't just give her a pass.
Palin has many lies. There are many blogs analysing her, ridiculing her and exposing her - on both the left and right. This is just one blog concentrated on just one absolutely outrageous lie.
But I don't think this is a game. I do think there are some losers. The losers have already been identified. It is a teenage girl who was used by her mother to exploit a POLITICAL ambition. It is a tiny little baby who needs special care and devoted parents who put his wellbeing above everything else who is instead being used and passed around like as a political prop. A tiny baby who I have never seen held lovingly by the woman who calls herself his mother.
Promoting this woman or turning our backs on her lies and deceptions and frauds doesn't help anyone, not them, not us and not, believe it or not, Sarah Palin.
If I were Sarah Palin, I would worry less about 'winning' anything and worry more about reassessing my values and my priorities. I would also quote something Jackie Kennedy said once that I personally have always taken to heart.
If you mess up your children, nothing else you do really matters.
Craig:
You said:
"And they most certainly will not accept a reporter's story in which she has obtained some quotes and has viewed some records and has determined that they exist and appear authentic."
That reminded me of the whole saga of Obama's birth certificate. Remember?
First, some wingnuts claimed he wasn't born in the USA, not a "natural-born" citizen.
So the Obama campaign posts a copy of his State of Hawaii birth certificate on its web site.
Other wingnuts (so-called "experts") did "forensic analysis" of the JPEG of the BC, and convinced themselves that it was a forgery. Outcry ensued in the right-wing blogosphere.
Some other wingnuts started filing lawsuits in federal court, demanding Obama prove he's a natural-born US citizen.
Eventually, the Obama campaign granted permission to factcheck.org for them to physically examine said birth certificate. factcheck.org did so, taking pictures of it, handling it, noting the official signature and raised seal of the State of Hawaii, and concluded that the BC was legit. They wrote up a detailed report and posted it on their website.
What happened? More lawsuits.
The Mother Jones article on SP not being invited to McCain's dinner seems to indicate we can leave SP to her fate in the hands of the Alaska voters. If she had any supporters in the GOP (or other powers) there would have been a ruckus about this.
She could have easily refused because of the opening of the legislature and her need to be in Juneau, but McAllister says she didn't receive an invitation.
My take on this is that she's toast.
sandra in oregon
This was a good post as far as making us start thinking differently and about something other than photos.
I think everything you said is very interesting. But, ironically, I think that if they released the BC, some would question its legitimacy (as many are doing with Obama's).
Jennifer
Serious question (not rhetorical) to those who believe Willow or Sherry is the mother:
Are you aware of any internet rumors (outside of this blog, preferably from AK sources) supporting your suspicions?
Rumors don't constitute evidence, although any principal's response to such rumors does. So if SP goes on record denying the rumors, we don't know if the rumors are true false, just that SP wants us to think they are false.
But I know of no scuttlebutt or discussion of Willow or Sherry Johnston being pregnant, although I doubt SJ would earn any public discussion.
Bristol has been the focus of attention because of her shaky-to-non-existent alibi. I've suggested that Bristol's movements -- switching schools then dropping out -- may have been to set her up to claim credit for the baby.
The 'Bristol might be pregnant' rumors go back into late 2007, probably about the time she changed schools. That would be typical HS and Wasilla local gossip, like any small town would blab about a notable younger.
But perhaps Bristol was discovered to be not pregnant, or the Palins thought that could be proven. SP's change of fashion with indoor coats and scarves began shortly after Bristol's car accident. That's also when SP started to issue denials about the rumor. Then she announced that she was pregnant.
All of these facts align for, perhaps, the following scenario:
1) Willow gets pregant.
2) Bristol agrees to hide so that she can claim to have given birth to the child. Perhaps the Johnstons go along with the plan, again to protect Willow.
3) Rumors surface regarding Bristol -- no surprise there since she switched schools without a good reason. The Palins don't comment.
4) Bristol is caught non-pregnant in early February, maybe because of her traffic accident in Wasilla.
5) With Bristol unable to continue the ruse, SP decides she has to cover for Willow. They can't do a hide-and-fake-adoption because of the false rumors about Bristol.
6) SP begins to set the stage for a faked pregnancy with her 'fashion assisted camouflage'. She also loudly denies the Bristol rumors.
7) SP takes her chances announcing she is 7-months pregnant, despite not looking pregnant and having not told anybody. She puts on as good a show as she can.
8) Trig comes too soon for SP to make a convincing show, and she's caught out-of-town when Trig is born.
There's no evidence to debunk this theory, yet. It could be defeated any number of way including, most notably, a solid alibi for Willow.
My problem with Bristol theory, apart from the Tripp problems which are still unresolved, is why SP would wait so long to start faking! Faking is tricky enough, but to announce a pregnancy at 7-months looking the way she did just raises eyebrows.
There had to be intervening event, either that they planned hide-and-adopt but that wouldn't work, or Bristol couldn't take credit for the baby.
I don't know nor claim to know the true circumstances, but they have to be consistent with the evidence and all the principals' motivated actions.
Dangerous
Shelby,
To add more of Sarah's quote than you posted....
"Pat, we have cooperated. I told you I gave birth to Trig. My family and I were interviewed by local and national press on this, as was my doctor. We released my medical summary to national press. How much more "cooperation" can we provide before that line of questioning ends?.....At this point, I do not blame my doctor for not wanting to comment further, and I join her in saying enough is enough, I will no longer continue to try to prove that Trig is my son."
Like it or not, this degree of cooperation has been enough for the bulk of the media, blogosphere and general public to consider sufficient.
No significant traction has been generated toward a baby conspiracy since early September (in other words, within the media, internet and general public) despite a bitter, divisive, emotionally-charged and ugly political campaign, and continued attention on Sarah in the post-campaign.
It's certainly not for lack of political and personal enemies of Palin, and a large number of bloggers, media outlets and ordinary people who are pre-disposed to want to seek out, believe and support anything that could damage her personally or politically.
And despite that environment, and her own sagging approval numbers, both within Alaska and nationally, since the election, this story remains virtually unchallenged. (Even the well-known liberal Alaskan bloggers that I've read see it as a non-story.)
You can believe whatever reason you wish as to why Sarah won't provide further proof, but, as I've said, until the dynamics change, she'll have no real reason to provide more information (unless she wants to try for 100% agreement with her).
T in Canada, That was excellent!
I don't do links, but this is worth a read:
"Palin to be No Show at Obama's Dinner for McCain" it is in Mother Jones 1/15/09...
"Can true tribute be paid to McCain without Palin's presence? Picking her for his party's veep nomination was McCain's most decisive and significant action of his campaign. And she spent weeks praising him as an American hero, a man the country desperately needed as president."
ooops! didn't see Sandra.
MJ article: Palin to be No Show at Obama's Dinner for McCain
"According to McAllister, Palin will spend next week in her home state preparing for the legislative session, which begins on Tuesday, and for her State of the State address on Thursday.
Was she even invited? "I don't know if she was invited," McCallister says. Don't know? How could that be? It's hard to miss an invitation from a presidential inauguration committee."
No one is talking. Meghan McCain can't say the SP word either.
Obama is hosting the dinner in honor of McCain. Maybe Palin wouldn't want to go "pal around" with someone who "palled around with terrorists," in her world view (i.e., The Palin Doctrine).
So Palin doesn't blame CBJ for not wanting to comment further. How convenient an arrangement. Palin gives permission for her doctor to talk about Trig's birth, knowing that her doctor will not comment. Palin not to blame.
Are we the Over-Eager Diarists?
Lolita,
I've always been fascinated by the way McCain suddenly cooled to Palin after defending her so vigorously on the trail.
Word is that towards the end of the campaign he wasn't even speaking to her, and afterward when asked if he'd support her as a candidate in 2012 he refused to do that.
I've always suspected that somewhere towards the end of the campaign McCain found out about the pregnancy lie. Perhaps Palin told him, perhaps some of the staffers who'd grown disenchanted with her found out the truth on their own. But something happened that made him go from championing her to dissing her. Now McCain's daughter even says that Palin is the one thing about her dad's campaign that she will not discuss.
Something happened to make them completely reject her, and I think it was more than just losing.
Dangerous says, "4) Bristol is caught non-pregnant in early February, maybe because of her traffic accident in Wasilla."
Once Bristol was caught non-pregnant and Sarah donned belly pads, then Bristol no longer had to be hidden. But she was, until Trig's alleged birth at MatSu.
The accident proves little except that Bristol was in Wasilla going to a medical clinic that night. Maybe flu, maybe prenatal care. She would have worn a winter coat on a Febreuary night so the kid she hit, and the police who responded, easily wouldn't have noticed if she was pregnant.
I need to read your scenario, Dangerous, some morning when my mind is fresher, but at first glance it seems unnecessarily complicated. Either this is a pretty simple Sarah-covers-for-Bristol or it is Sarah wants us Over-Eager Diarists to think that and miss something else. You believe the latter, I think, that Bristol is a decoy for Willow.
I think simpler is more likely. Sarah didn't don the pads when Bristol became useless as a decoy. Probably DS was found and an adoption failed. (Burned church records, anyone?) Or Sarah was watching Bristol, a young woman with her first pregnancy, and planned to look as big as Bristol did, even though Sarah was an older woman on her fifth pregnancy. So Sarah started padding late and tried to go from zero to sixty in less than two months. Nail in the Coffin.
Dangerous:
Thanks for your detailed reply to my question. Very thoughtful and well reasoned.
"Trig is a gift from God to Sarah."
a gift from God into her uterus, or a gift from God through a church member? There IS a difference ya know.
Sarah would have gotten by with the fake pregnancy but for the wild ride story, wouldn't she? The locals who knew the Bristol rumor might have suspected something, but her 24-hour delivery story raised eyebrows of those who never heard of Bristol or the rumor.
Morgan, you said;
"I've always suspected that somewhere towards the end of the campaign McCain found out about the pregnancy lie."
I have wondered about that too (particularly after reading that McCain's daughter will not talk about Sarah Palin. I wonder if someone "caught" Bristol breast feeding Trig on the plane.....
I wouldn't read too much into Palin not getting invited to McCain's Obama dinner.
McCain has already been kicked to the curb among the conservative Republican base.
So Palin can actually wear the non-invite as a badge of honor.
A more telling indicator will be if SP attends CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) in Feb., and what sort of reception she receives.
One thing people like Craig and even Sarah Palin need to remember is that there are actually many people in this country who--until Sarah's recent whinefest--had never heard the original babygate rumors. Yes, it's true; Sarah is not the center of the universe!
I consider myself something of a news junkie, but I didn't make it a practice of reading political blogs until I found out very recently about these rumors and realized there is an entire subculture of information that doesn't make it to the BBC or MSNBC or whatever.
True, thanks to Hurricane Gustav, I was evacuated and then dealing with a 10 day powerloss at the end of August-beginning of September. But I know MANY (intelligent, educated) people who do not sit at their computers every day looking for news. And the truth is, if you blinked at the right time, you missed this story. It was just GONE. Most of the sites talking about it were actually deleted.
So how did I find out about the rumors? Ironically, what first caught my attention was the strange body language between Sarah and Trig every time she hauled him out on stage with her. It just struck me as weird. But it wasn't until my uberRepublican sister started ranting in mid-October about those "crazy liberal bloggers saying that baby wasn't hers" that I sat up and went, "What? Really? THAT would explain it!" I hit Google, saw the pictures from the convention of Bristol holding the child--and those breasts--and said, "Oh, God; it's hers." THEN I found this site and a few others and read the entire scenario.
My point is, Sarah's whining is probably giving many people their first exposure to this rumor. So why is she doing this? Because she's so egocentric is doesn't occur to her that everyone hasn't been talking about her for the last five months? Because she wants to fire up her base and this "rumor" really seems to rile them? Or does she have some other purpose?
I don't know the answer to that.
Craig:
Pat, we have cooperated. I told you I gave birth to Trig.
So what? You've lied before and of course that is what you are going to say if you faked your pregnancy.
My family and I were interviewed by local and national press on this, as was my doctor. Really? where is there a video of your doctor being interviewed? Where did your doctor say she attended you at your birth? I would love to see an interview with your doctor.
We released my medical summary to national press. Yes you did and it was very cleverly worded to not have your doctor say she attended you at birth or that she delivered Trig
How much more "cooperation" can we provide before that line of questioning ends?..... Who is questioning you Sarah? If it is just a few nutcases bloggers WHY DO YOU CARE? Why do you bring it up? Why do you watch the blogs? What are you so damn worried about?
All your WORDS Sarah, and that is what they are, just words, don't explain why pictures of you at 7 months pregnant, show absolutely no pregnancy at all.
Really Sarah, you don't need to convince me. I'll never vote for you anyway and it has nothing to do with whether or not you gave birth to Trig. In fact, I don't really care.
If Trig was your son and you wanted to prove it you could and would. You haven't and you know it.
I don't know why. My logical deduction is because you can't because he isn't.
You say otherwise, but I see no proof at all besides your words and the words of your elusive doctor. And sorry Sarah, but your 'words' mean nothing. Maybe to some people, not to me. I've heard you lie too many times
So Craig, you are Udub.
My take on your comments as Udub on ADN Editor's Blog is that you are trying to discourage Pat from continuing the story. Why would you do that?
You are the one that keeps stating that the MSM will not pick this story up. If you really believe that why would you try to discourage ADN (MSM) from running with the story? Shouldn't that not be necessary according to your stated beliefs. I would think that your help wouldn't be needed.
You confuse me. Your motive, if there is one, is quite odd.
The naked truth is always chasing a well-dressed lie.
For all those putting forth the notion that someone other than Bristol is the likely birth-mother of Trig, I point you to every single image of dear Bristol that was taken during the RNC convention time-frame.
The girl was fairly well-endowed a year or two earlier, yes. But the pictures of her at the convention are a dead giveaway for who, among the Palin clan, might be breastfeeding a baby.
I know. I've been there. Three times. You may nor may not show an increased breast size during pregnancy, but when the milk starts to flow, look out! Your normal rack morphs into a pair of gabonzas! And that's what Bristol had in the pics I've seen. If she were not nursing, there is no logical explanation for the amazing size increase that I can see.
Anyone have any possible reasons for Bristol going from 34B to 38DD?
This is interesting....
I sent an e-mail to Pat Dougherty's editorsblog e-mail address asking him to tell me how he knows for sure that Palin was pregnant. I RECEIVED A REPLY!
This was his reply via e-mail:
'We saw Palin, close up, late in her pregnancy. She was pregnant. We know the doctor; she's not a liar. etc.'
Can you believe that he said this woman is not a liar? Pat is either stupid or scared $$it.
"Those are pictures of the Mat su Regional birthing center. There is a virtual tour on their website and the photos match the birthing rooms and the lobby"
BlueTx - If you're back for more, and not really "done here" I have a question for you. I've been all over the MatSu site - could you tell me where the link for the virtual tour is?
Bristol has been the focus of attention because of her shaky-to-non-existent alibi.
And because of her prow-like bustline at the GOP convention. Or is that, too, part of SP's grand have-Bristol-take-the-fall plan?
Even if I were to imagine Bristol the most altruistic female child that ever walked the earth, there is simply no scenario under which I can envision her stuffing the backseat of a 1940 Packard under her dress and then GETTING UP ON STAGE IN FRONT OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
But, if Bristol is Trig's mother -- and I believe she is -- then she might, rightly so, take pride in that maternal bosom. Especially since she is not allowed to claim her child as her own.
If she attends the Conservative Political Action Convention in Feb.it will show how little she actually thinks about the state that rural Alaska is in or the issues of the legislator session.
She probably will though... and get as much media coverage as possible.
People Magazine may even have those "baby" pictures then!
sg said...
I wouldn't read too much into Palin not getting invited to McCain's Obama dinner.
---------------------------
I think I saw something over at TS about Sarah being a speaker at that CPAC thingy?
(yes, I can’t resist peeking in there sometimes!)
I wonder if someone "caught" Bristol breast feeding Trig on the plane.....
Can women in their second trimester breast feed?
Sincere question - I don't know.
Pat, Pat, Pat. Your smack-down this week was really painful to watch.
You could have called their bluff, asked for a birth certificate -- HEY IT'S A START! At least it's not as vague as her DOCTOR'S NOTE! -- and had the greatest scoop of the year.
Just think.
That might have led to all sorts of better-paying jobs at more profitable newspapers & you coulda told those hillbillies to KISS OFF.
Too bad you have to play their games & stay right where you are.
Ideas, theories, etc. “Freedom of Speech” that is just ONE OF THE MANY THINGS that make America great! I personally like a good conspiracy theory and I especially like it when they turn out to be true. With that said…I have never thought even once that Bristol (or Willow for that matter) gave birth to Trig. I have always felt it is a Johnston woman and Track Palin…more to come after I write it all. To Alex: I thought you were a tin-foil hat person too?
"Can women in their second trimester breast feed?"
the answer is yes, and I will post a couple of links for you as well.
http://www.womenshealthcaretopics.com/preg_breastfeeding_during.htm
http://www.breastfeed.com/articles/breastfeeding-your-toddler/breastfeeding-during-pregnancy-2638/
http://www.pregnancy-period.com/breastfeeding_during_pregnancy.html
Floyd M. Orr (re: 3:43 PM),
Sarah Palin is scheduled to be Glenn Beck's first guest via satellite -- I've read it's from Anchorage -- but she's been known to have interviews in her home in Wasilla... :)
--------------------
sg (re: 6:14 PM) said, A more telling indicator will be if SP attends CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) in Feb., and what sort of reception she receives.
Her TeamSarah supporters are planning on setting up a booth there with their trinkets and t-shirts. They'll be hysterical if she does show up.
So will the Alaska legislature, I would imagine. ;)
I just saw Campbell Brown on CNN and thought wow, she looks pregnant. I googled her and sure enough, she announced on Oct. 28th that they are expecting another baby. She is due in April which would put her at 6 months. It is very obvious she is pregnant, I had no idea and I picked up on it right away... unlike our friend SP who didn't even announced she was pregnant until she shocked everyone when she announced she was "7 months pregnant". I realize everyone shows differently but I just had to put it out there, I think it's pretty hard to hid when you are constantly in the limelight.
The other thing I had to say is I never bought the story that they released Trig 2 days after he was born and she took him to work 3 days after he was born. I had a pre-term baby born at 36 weeks who was in the NICU for 3 days for observation even though she was perfectly healthy and a few years later another baby born at 36 weeks who was in the NICU for 2 weeks. In CA it is protocol to immediately take babies to the NICU for observation if they are under 36 1/2 weeks, I wonder what the protocol is for AK?
"If God chose Sarah to parent Trig, why didn't God provide better belly pads?"
Okay, B, you did it.
You made me shoot pineapple juice out my nose.
I'm curious about SP's recent attention seeking behavior and all her fuss over anonymous liberal bloggers and the MSM. While I admit to being a regular (daily) reader of this blog and I'm impressed with the increasing comments and hits to this site, if I happen to mention my thoughts or continued focus on the pregnancy most people are shocked that anyone is even talking/blogging about this anymore. My point - as bloggers our size is not that great in the scheme of things so I'm thinking maybe it's the information and ideas we've been generating as a collective that have her sweating. No offense meant, I just mean until SP brought up the issue it wasn’t active in the MSM. Maybe the genuine interest in seeing SP’s supposedly new born first grandchild has cause her to deflect from producing photos and lash out at us – we are her distraction and if she gets enough “tin-foil wearing hat” comments out there even if we do find her deception she hopes we’ve been embarrassingly discredited so no one with touch the story.
I have and continue to believe SP has been untruthful about her pregnancy. Whether that includes faking her pregnancy or hiding some detail of the birth circumstances or delivery I'm not sure. I don't lean towards Willow having been pregnant - as far as I understand she did not miss any school and I believe previous posts indicated her name was on the honour roll at school. I think it would have been very difficult to have attended school as she did if pregnant – there’s gym class and teens are always watching each others appearances.
I have always leaned towards Bristol as Trigg's mom. At the announcement of her pregnancy in September I believed I'd see a report of a miscarriage - possible blamed on the intense media coverage or whatever. As I lean towards her giving birth in the spring (just when I’m not certain) I think Tripp hasn’t arrived.
I know this link was provided in a previous post - I was wondering if someone with infant experience could look at some of the photos in which Trigg is prominent. Do they fit with the abilities/neck muscles of a 4 1/2 month old DS baby? I'm serious - I don't have children.
http://www.mccainblogette.com/postings/083008_0928.shtml
In perusing the Mother Jones site I came across an article whereby MJ requested copies of all FOI requests for the Governor of Alaska during August & September. Here is a link to the article from which you can also view all requests,who made them and when:
http://tinyurl.com/7wn7w3 (copies of requests)
http://tinyurl.com/3tffbs (the article)
There is a copy of that memo discussing the Palin reimbursements for travel and discussing some of the events attended by Palin children in with the requests.
Lisa Demer was requesting info as far back as 9/10 & 9/11, (prior to ADN editor denying any story ala CajunBoy) asking for all email for Wed. 8/27 along with records of exactly who is provided with state issued blackberries and cellphones.
Requests from other media outlets include one for all email between SP & Molly McCann and another for Todd Palin cellphone records.
Cajun also makes a statement in one of his posts that his info is that BP has enrolled in her sister's high school as of 1/12/09.
(Sorry if this is posting twice, not sure what is happening with the page...if so please ignore)
In perusing the Mother Jones site I came across an article whereby MJ requested copies of all FOI requests for the Governor of Alaska during August & September. Here is a link to the article from which you can also view all requests,who made them and when:
http://tinyurl.com/7wn7w3 (copies of requests)
http://tinyurl.com/3tffbs (the article)
There is a copy of that memo discussing the Palin reimbursements for travel and discussing some of the events attended by Palin children in with the requests.
Lisa Demer was requesting info as far back as 9/10 & 9/11, (prior to ADN editor denying any story ala CajunBoy) asking for all email for Wed. 8/27 along with records of exactly who is provided with state issued blackberries and cellphones.
Requests from other media outlets include one for all email between SP & Molly McCann and another for Todd Palin cellphone records.
Cajun also makes a statement in one of his posts that his info is that BP has enrolled in her sister's high school as of 1/12/09.
1. If Sarah releases Trig's "birth certificate," it could still be a fake. It would be easy enough to take the real one, digitize it, change the date and/or location of his birth, and release that. I wonder why she didn't do that? Maybe they're still working on it.
2. DNA info on Trig would be meaningless without DNA info on other family members, so that comparisons could be made.
3. People keep saying that Sarah committed fraud if she lied about Trig's birth. I'm not a lawyer, but since when is a lie to the media "fraud"? Unless she lied under oath or to the insurance company or on sworn statements, can it be fraud?
4. If Sarah & Todd adopted Trig before year-end, he would be their dependent for tax purposes, same as if she birthed him. He would also be on her insurance. And I'm guessing that there will be no reason for Sarah & Todd to release their tax returns?
5. Someone asked for just-given-birth photos of a tired Sarah in the hospital. Even if she’d given birth to Trig, I don’t think she would release a photo of herself not looking nice: perfect hair and make-up, etc.
6. More on Bristol not seeming pregnant to the guy in the accident: I don't live in Alaska, but where I live we also have serious winters. I wear a long down coat which makes me look like a giant pillow (with feet) when I wear it. A coat like that might hide a pregnancy.
Naked Truth,
I was in no way trying to talk him out of writing a story that he had already put on the shelf himself. He had described his rationale for doing a story, with the Palin's cooperation, as a way to end the conspiracy talk. I merely gave him my input that his intended audience (the conspiracy believers) was moving beyond accepting proof such as a birth certificate and a clarifying quote from Dr. Johnson. A growing number seemed to require a DNA test or felt that nothing could be provided anymore that wouldn't be tainted.
Therefore, his stated rationale of debunking the conspiracy talk seemed likely to fail with all but a small minority of doubters.
Pat simply acknowledged that such a result was probably true.
Believe me, if he thought that the Palins might possibly give him an exclusive story involving further proof about Trig, he wouldn't have shown a second of reluctance!
By the way, what's with the "etc" in describing Pat's response to your e-mail? Why not give his full response?
Funny how Pat's proximity to and/or first-hand knowledge of, people like Sarah Palin and Dr. Johnson, through the course of his years of work, results in zero credence to the possibility that he may actually have some reasonable basis (yet short of specific proof) to believe it when he says he thinks Sarah is Trig's birth mother and that Dr. Johnson is a truthful person.
Instead, Pat must just be dumb or scared.
Craig,
I have to say, it seems as if you become worried or upset when mainstream media does address this issue. If someone is truly trying to find out the truth about an issue, why in the world would you email or comment to them that they shouldn't try to find any proof on the piece, and in fact, suggest to them that they should just ignore it? To actually close their eyes to it and then work to try to convince whomever you can to not look at it either. This doesn't make any sense.
I have tried to address this with you before. Making a blanket statment claiming that it doesn't matter what you (Sarah, or the Media) do, they won't believe you, is insulting. It is dismissive, belittling and undermining. It is also not true for the majority of people here.
I have already stated that while Audrey has found that birth certificates can be change legally, and Sarah Palin has proven that she can and will lie to the public, then they may not be a reliable source of proof. Medical Records on the other hand, keep a running acount of labs and procedures that are done. They are also stamped, dated and often signed with the MD's handwritten signature. It is illegal to falsify records and I think anyone would think twice about trying to do that. This would satisfy me.
Deb
Conspiracy Theory:
Who are the birthparents of Trig? I believe it is Track Palin & Mercedes Johnston.
What? Trig not “Tripp”.
Where did the conception happen? At the Johnston house.
When? Late July 2007 when SP was on her trip to the Middle East?
Why? Because we wanted to “do it”?
Why the fake pregnancy of SP?
1. Track is an adult but Mercedes isn’t. Fits why SP’s doctor was picked (she is a church member and the church does private adoptions).
2. Early testing revealed paternity was indeed Track and that the baby had DS. SP needed to fake the pregnancy because of the cost during the life of Trig not the initial birth. I’m sure that the Palin family could afford the pre-natal and delivery costs of the actual mother. Track and Mercedes might have wanted to raise the baby as their own (mother-in-law comment on MySpace page) but decided that since he would have DS then it would be better to have SP and TP (those initials make me giggle) adopt him. They both would see Trig thru out his entire lifetime.
3. SP could gain sympathy points from the Republican base for having a DS baby and for Track (forced) being in the military. A GOOD TRADE OFF.
What are those MySpace pages about of Mercedes Johnston telling us?
1. That “Triggy Bear” is the cutest and her brother. MERCEDES IS GLOWING WITH LOVE FOR TRIG in that picture, in my opinion.
2. That SP is her “Mother-in-law”, thru Trig not marriage.
3. Bristol is family love. Because she knew that Bristol was pregnant with her brother’s baby and that she had just had Track’s baby which would forever become her brother thru adoption.
4. Prom pictures? Just a girl finally getting freedom from being pregnant and wow don’t I look good with my not pregnant belly showing? She made sure she didn’t look pregnant, just in case there were rumors about her floating around Wasilla. Bristol could not attend their prom because SP wouldn’t let her because she was pregnant with “Tripp”.
What about Bristol’s absence from school?
1. She wasn’t absent, in my opinion, she was attending Burchell High with Mercedes. You know to “keep an eye on Mercedes for SP”
2. Burchell High has a correspondence class, so after Bristol was done spying for SP (in Bristol’s “early” months – who would know) and then she could continue thru correspondence in her later “showing” months).
What about Bristol and Levi at the RNC?
1. Just expressing love for Trig and “pretending” what that would look and be like when they have their child.
2. Bristol just got bigger boobs because she was pregnant and the dress choice was really bad.
What about Keith and Sherry Johnston? Well so far, Sherry Johnston didn’t follow SP’s rules and Keith has.
Okay, what does everyone think? I’m sure someone has an opinion or two; I’d like to hear them to help me see if everything fits.
Re: several posters' observations of Bristol's more than amble bosom at the RNC convention...
Yes, there are several photos dated the 3rd and 4th of September at the RNC convention showing her quite overly endowed...the one dated on the 3rd, of Bristol and Levi standing/applauding is a side view where her body looks totally distorted...from the neck to the middle of her abdomen...
On the contrary there is a picture of Bristol and Levi on the tarmac dated September 1st when the entire McCain and Palin families met. In this picture Bristol is wearing a blue "pencil" skirt (belted), darker blue silk/satin blouse, and khaki jacket which blew open to reveal her blouse and very normal looking (not over stuffed) bosom and body shape...
So my question is simple...what happened to Bristol between the 1st and 3rd of September to cause her body to change so drastically in 2 days?
Some comments,
I'm sorry I attributed Todd's statement in People to Levi.
Dangerous, I would like your opinion on whether the reports of Tripp's birth are journalistic or not. I am not sure.
Someone said DNA testing is too invasive of the family. That is not so. Multiple family members need not be tested, only Sarah. I'm sure women have their own DNA just as men do. The DNA that one of the posters asked about in the maternal line is called mitochondrial DNA, and that is indeed passed intact from mother to daughter.
Some people have mentioned that even if SP is the mother of Trig, that is almost worse. That is indeed the scenario that first interested me. My sister told me about Sarah Palin and this whole crazy business on September 27th, and my first response was that whichever scenario was true it didn't look good.
It seems that Bristol ought to be pregnant. If they made it up entirely, what was their plan? Whatever their plan was, it would have been divided into what to do if McCain won and what to do if he lost. Perhaps they figured if he won and they were shown to be liars, there would be nothing the American people could do about it.
The earliest likely time frame for Bristol to become re-pregnant, esp if she was giving at least some bottles, is about 6 weeks postpartum, or June 1st. But this gives a due date of March 1st. And this is actually consistent with her appearance before Christmas striding into the church. She looked about 6 months pregnant.
What they were planning to do about that, who knows?
For SP not going to the dinner, that would be a public exposure requiring BP to tag along to baby sit.
There are many ways this could go.
She is still PG or has a new baby.
Trig would be a handful away from his natural mother.
SP would not get past scrutiny leaving a 7mo baby behind as she so adamantly paraded him around at 4mo.
Exposure at this time would be too risky.
Going on the theory that has been suggested about Sherry Johnson and Track Palin...yes it would explain why Mercede Johnson refers to him as a baby brother. It may also explain why Levi was seen kissing him...afterall it would be his brother.
Blue TX
am finding it curious though that no one has commented on the photos of the Palin parents in the hospital holding Trig after his birth.
http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8194634
Maybe because it doesn't fit some of your theories?
I seem to think it has been commented on previously in the blog. If you care to go back and read it, I can guarantee it is there; I even seem to recall a blog Audrey wrote with the picture on there. It has been discussed. If you actually read what has been discussed in the past; you'd be well aware of this fact!
This was his (Pat Dougherty's)reply via e-mail:
'We saw Palin, close up, late in her pregnancy. She was pregnant. We know the doctor; she's not a liar. etc.'
I assume the "she's" as in she's not a liar refers to the doctor.
You have to give Mr. Dougherty SOME credit!
Methinks we will see TWO babies on the Glen Beck show with SP on Monday.
Fox loves her and she would give them the first right because fellow readers, there really are people in this country who LIKE SP. And they all watch Fox. And they voted for her this past November. It is her constituency.
My, My Craig,
You don't appear to be so happy about getting called out. You are concerned about MSM actually taking us serious, aren't you?!!!!
I will say it again, Pat is either stupid (quote me correctly) or scared $$it. That's my opinion.
As for the reply I received back from Pat or someone at the Editor's Blog, that was the entire reply for your information. They used etc. as the ending of the sentence. I guess they ran out of reasons for believing Gov. Palin's wild ride. Why do you believe it?
The naked truth is always chasing a well-dressed lie. And this lie is dressed in it's Sunday's best.
anonincanada -
I was checking that blogette site, too. I'm not sure about DS musculature, but I did notice a lot of bottle-feeding going on. With the kind of schedule SP kept up, it would be very difficult to keep up with nursing. (Even if she did "put down the Blackberry and get the breast pump out in the middle of the night" or whatever she said.) He also strikes me as quite large for his supposed age. But I had small babies, so I'm probably not the best judge of that. The other thing that seemed clear was that Piper and Willow were having a blast, while poor Bristol just has an air of sadness and resignation. :(
B - I don't usually mean it literally when I write LOL, but the "why didn't God provide better belly pads" comment almost had me ROTFL!
Actually, Ivyfree, I think you should coin a new one:
SPJOOMN
Awesome!
I have to vent. I know that SP is upset about the blogs defaming her family. But, really? Does she really think our line of inquiry is anywhere near the aggressive, vile stuff blogged about (and still being so) about Obama?! For crying out loud, people were actually theorizing he was/is the anti-Christ! She thinks she has bad? She's a piece of work!
Jennifer
Naked truth - Next Chapter:
Just curious to find out how my comments could be characterized as "upset", "worried" or unhappy?
I appreciate that my last comment was so well-received, as time-consuming as it must have been to read! I wasn't trying to shift the focus of the thread, but I have to admit that one of the things that fascinates me so much about this story is the sheer insanity of it, and the psychology behind a person who thinks nobody sees or suspects their crazy behaviour.
What initially got me interested in this whole saga was the fact that SP so blatantly used SIMPLE MATH, and HER OWN DAUGHTER to stop a rumour. It immediately raised my suspicions. And that so many people swallowed it and stopped asking about it surprised me.
I am thoroughly enjoying all the reading here, and thank you all for taking a few minutes a day to discuss this rationally. Discussing irrational things is really the only way to bring about any rationale. If we let crazy things be, eventually we'll all have no choice but to fall in line with "crazy". I just can't do it! I just can't accept the craziness of this - something is very wrong up in Alaska.
Come on, AMA - do your frigging jobs and investigate this. Audrey and Morgan et al. need a break from the tiresome work you should be doing - and we all need A BREAK in this story!
Here's my Trig birth theory, FWIW:
Nobody knew Bristol was pregnant until late December '07, or maybe January '08. I would venture that BP was sick, and I think there was some suspicion that she might be pregnant, but - and maybe this sounds weird - I don't think anyone took her to the doctor to find their worst fears were true. If I know pregnant teenagers, BP found a way to excuse it away and not be taken to the doctor. She was tired and sick - she must have the flu. After a few weeks, maybe she said "I must have mono or something".
And aren't we all aware now that SP will find a way to ignore something she doesn't want to be true?
BP WAS pregnant in the picture that showcases the belly, in the green top - BP may have known or suspected at the time, but SP had no idea. That picture would never have happened. It could have been the way they found out (imagine Sarah at the photomat flipping through the picures... seeing the belly... and thinking, no, say it ain't so! Okay, well, we'll just wait and see, won't we?).
When they found out for sure BP was pregnant, she was about six or seven months along. Panic. What to do? Say she's pregnant (rumours had been swirling anyway) and risk the (possible, probable)judgment and condemnation of her peers, clergy, community, Alaskan voters, anyone who supports SP?
They vote for keeping it quiet, taking her out of school, sending her to Aunt Whoever's, and decide to set up a quiet adoption (which they never get a chance to start processing). They get BP an ultrasound and find out how far along she is.
Panic! She's about seven months!
OR - they really do the amniocentesis with the ultrasound and discover birth defects (I'm still not convinced Trig has DS - no real enough proof for me. I wonder if he may just have birth defects - we'll know when he matures a little) and know they cannot go the adoption route.
Panic!
So brainstorming, SP decides to say it's hers, and have the EXACT OPPOSITE EFFECT that a BP pregnancy would. Praise, accolades, admiration from everybody who supports her. And who wants to pick on a pregnant politician in these PC times? SP would look like a super dynamo mother wolverine!
Only there are people in AK who knew BP was pregnant. Once SP announced her pregnancy, most people there likely felt stupid for believing that hooey about a young girl. She's just a kid! Leave her alone. And what crazy person believes a crazy story like a public figure faking a pregnancy? This isn't TV. Nobody would be able to get away with that - because WE AREN'T STUPID.
It's easier for people to believe anything if believing otherwise makes them look stupid.
All else figured, well, let the Palins deal with it, it's probably her daughter's baby, but it's still none of anyone's business.
I don't think Bristol was at the Iditarod, or the luncheon. If she was, she wore a big winter coat or baggy sweatshirt. Even if anyone at those events suspected, they were quickly accused of being crazy or rumour-mongers. Most people let an issue drop when they hear how awful they sound discussing it.
I've known pregnant teenagers who were brought to the hospital for stomach pains by their parents when they were IN LABOUR. So I don't think it's a big stretch (NPI!) to consider that nobody knew she was pregnant, or just dismissed it as a small-town scandal that may or may not be true.
So SP "had" her baby. That is to say, Bristol did. I believe that the Wild Ride was "Bristol has had the baby and he has birth defects - Sarah, get back here, now!". They did not announce that the baby had DS until after he was born. Did they? If they did, I'm surprised SP wasn't ALL OVER that during her 8 week fake pregnancy, because it would have made her look like Super Compassionate Capable Dynamo Mother Wolverine with a whole new group of voters on her side. Someone correct me if there is an accurate report of her knowing before the birth that Trig supposedly had DS. If she didn't announce it before the birth, she didn't know about it, is my conclusion. And that would satisfactorily explain the Wild Ride for me. Maybe.
Then the rumour died, except with the few Alaskan doubters, who figured they'd never hear the truth, and know SP is an expert liar, so let it die.
Then the VP announcement.
Then, everything else.
I believe Bristol is the mother of Trig. I believe it because Sarah Palin herself has given me no choice but to believe it. If she hadn't announced BP's pregnancy, and hadn't dragged her to the RNC, I'd believe it even less. Trig was carried around and coddled by Bristol. Levi was kissing his head onstage. A teenaged guy who doesn't want kids, kissing his girlfriend's mother's DS baby??
And changing Trig's diapers?
Nope. I don't believe that for a minute.
I do believe Levi and Bristol are Trig's parents. I have other speculations, but that's one of the simplest ones for me and makes the most sense based on everything Sarah Palin has said and refuses to say.
In her own defense SP has come out and said "these rumours that I am not Trig's mother" but not once has she said "these rumours that Bristol is Trig's mother".
She can't bring herself to say it.
Those are the initial rumours. I tend to believe it too because it's the original Alaskan theory from early last year.
If SP admits the pregnancy was fake - she has to admit that she lied, a lot. At first, just anyone who she lied to in Alaska. But since announcing the Bristol pregnancy, she has to lie to the whole world about that, in support of the first lie.
And the church fire??? NOBODY thought that was suspicious except "us" tinfoil pyjama wearers??? NOBODY did a story on the connection between church and hospital, and unanswered questions about who we already know to be a corrupt and vengeful governor so closely involved with both church and hospital?
I'm sorry, but this is all too crazy and obvious to brush aside.
Where is the media on this?
Thanks to everyone here who only want the truth, and will not rest until what we already know is finally confirmed.
BlueTx,
I have a comment about the pictures in the hospital
http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8194634
you posted here.
It's just my opinion, but as a mother of three grown children and the nanny of a 1-month old baby, that baby face is not of a newborn, it's way too plump.
I agree Gail, the picture that Blue Tx has been questioning is not the face of a newborn baby.. and definitely not the face of a preemie newborn baby. Doesn't the baby's head get elongated by going through the birth canal? Doesn't the complextion of a newborn indicate the stress of being born?
Craig, indeed Pat Doughterty did use "etc." at the end of that interview. It would be nice of you to at least acknowledge to Naked Truth that you erred in your accusations before you pose your latest question asking her to explain herself.
I'd think if someone thought themselves worthy of an answer to subsequent questions they'd at least acknowledge being set straight by the one they just received.
Wouldn't a DS preemie be hooked onto monitors or ivs - anything?
T in Canada,
Well done! Very concise, logical scenario.
Only, I'd like to inject one more detail (did it come from Dangerous?)proposed here that has a palinesque ring. . .
Bristol gives birth before the Texas convention, but Sarah being Sarah figures, What the Hell. My pregnancy can happen whenever I choose. So she leaves Bristol and baby home, and toodles off to Texas.
The Wild Ride of Insanity is corroborated by only two people: Dad Heath and Sarah. So again, focus is pulled from the real birth mother and any lingering rumors, and the spotlight goes on the Fake Mother with an Outlandish Birth Story.
(However, as with all lies, discrepancies show up. Alaska Airlines personnel deny anyone that pregnant would have been allowed to fly. People are horrified that Sarah would fly in such conditions. . .)
There was no emergency. No wild ride. Sarah returns home, produces Trig, and resumes her wacky life of obliviousness. Trouble is, Bristol-- who may not have wanted to give up her baby to Mom Barracuda-- acts out, has sex, and gets pregnant again.
__________
Don't you ever wonder who was in charge of Bristol's "costume" for the Republican Convention? Could there have been a more-breast-enhancing dress? It screamed breastfeeding to me.
To T in Canada at 6:47 AM
Excellent post! My only difference with this theory is that Trig was born earlier. Notice how SP says in the video where she unveils Trig that "The logistics worked out." And Todd's statement that he wished it had been two more days yada yada yada. I believe that for whatever reasons they had to bring the baby out of hiding to or from the hospital, and that offered a convenient time to finally put all of the "secrecy" to rest. They seem relieved. At that moment, all was right in the world again--until-- as you said, SP was picked for VP.
Since SP believed that she would win, I think she believed that she would have enough power and influence to adopt a second baby. Her disillusionment (clearly seen on her face at McCain's concession speech) was not only that she wouldn't be able to speak, but that her lies had now become more complicated.
Lastly, the photos of Bristol "pregnant" following the RNC convince me even more of this theory, because there appear to be a bunch of rags stuffed in her sweatshirt.
I’ve been lurking a while. I can’t stop following this story. I know there are lots of inconsistencies and unanswered questions, but here are the ones I keep thinking about:
1. Her own kids didn’t know Trig had Down Syndrome until they saw him at the hospital, which means Sarah and Todd kept it a secret from everybody – even their own children. But now, she can’t stop talking about how blessed they are to have Trig; how he’s special; how he was made by God. Why all the secrecy while she was pregnant? Why not sit down and talk about it with your own children: explain to them what it means, what to expect, how God makes everybody different, etc.? If it’s because they were seriously concerned about Trig’s health to the point they couldn’t even talk about it, then why were they so nonchalant about leaking amniotic fluid? Sarah's and Todd’s attitudes about Down Syndrome before Trig was born (extreme secrecy) are drastically different from Sarah's and Todd’s attitudes about Down Syndrome after Trig was born (he’s a blessing from God and we love him no matter what his health issues are).
2. Some theories say that Bristol is Trig’s mom. Has anybody discussed how likely it is for a teenager to have a Down Syndrome baby? (I have no idea.)
It sounds like Pat Dougherty does not think he has in hand enough evidence to write a story in which he basically calls CBJ a liar.
For in addition to the Nov. 3 CBJ letter, PD has spoken to CBJ and she told him that Trig is Sarah's.
James Rainey/LA Times, 1/14/09:
"Dougherty told me that a Daily News reporter noticed Palin's weight gain and thought she might be pregnant, and that Palin's doctor told the newspaper that the baby was the governor's."
Looking at these photos side by side makes it so painfully obvious that the whole thing is a scam...
http://tinyurl.com/9cxeqb
Dangerous, did you ever have a sister or teenaged girls? There's a lot of rivalry between sisters, especially when they are that close; it's hard to get one to even do the dishes for the other. I can't believe even the nicest, most loving sister would drop out of school and cut herself off from her boyfriend and friends and athletics and proms etc in order to fake a pregnancy and take the "shame" on herself by deflecting suspicion from her sister! Willow may be the mother (anything's possible), but the Bristol-covering-for-her part of the scenario just doesn't pass the "believable motivation" test and muddies the water.
And Jersey Shores, the size of a lactating mother's breasts can swing from small when empty (just fed right before got off the plane) to HUGE when it's time to feed and for some reason she can't (like she's up on stage at a convention).
I think T in Canada makes a good point: if Sarah had known about the DS ahead of time, she would have milked it for all it was worth. Although she claims to have known ahead of time, there was no announcement until after the birth. When she first said she was pg, she refused to name the sex of the child. Some time later she reversed herself and said it was a boy, but nothing about DS. That may be a clue to the real birth date. Of course, it is possible that Trig's DS was not known immediately after birth. Sometimes it is not noticed right away.
And for those counting months, I have a friend whose second child was born exactly 10 months after the first (she was not happy).
Alex and Lion55ess, thank you. You're both probably right. If it was April 21st or 22nd that she paraded Trig around the office, he would have been at least a month old. Had to have been. A March birth would make more sense.
The Wild Ride was probably just a normal flight and there may have been no real reason at all to rush back to Alaska.... except to pretend she was in labour and make up the Wild Ride story in the first place.
So many avenues.
T in Canada, you go, Girl! I love reading your posts. Keep them coming.
You said about SP: If she didn't announce it before the birth, she didn't know about it, is my conclusion.
I totally agree. In a book club meeting some weeks ago, I had this same conversation with a group of women both liberals and conservatives. Even the conservative women agreed that if SP knew that she was pregnant with a DS baby, she would have used that as the reason to why she waited so late to announce her pregnancy.
In that first press interview she would have stated that she was 7 months pregnant with a 'special needs' child and that she and First Dude wanted to understand as much as they could about how to provide their child with every opportunity possible before making the announcement public. They would have told the public that it was hard for them to come to terms with the strong possibility that their child would require special care but their faith in God and in their abilities to parent would get them through.
Can you imagine how much additional mileage she would have gotten from her Evangelist friends with a statement like that?
Also, keep in mind that she didn't announce the sex of Trig until later as well. I think somewhere around the beginning of April '08.
Where I differ with you is that I believe that Trig was born in late February or early March but SP had to continue to fake the pregnancy for show and to fit into her own agenda. Also if Bristol is Trig's biological mother, and actually gave birth to Tripp in late Dec. '09, an early birthdate for Trig would allow for this.
What I do feel that I know for sure is that Gov. Palin did not give birth to Trig Paxson Van Palin.
More on my conspiracy theory (Track Palin + Mercedes Johnston): If Trig was born early it would be easier for him to stay in the hospital with a Johnston woman than a Palin woman.
OK..
This doesn't help or hurt things
But as a woman.. I am still baffled by how Sarah Palin "hid" her pregnancy with frumpy clothes/scarves after she announced her pregnancy
These days pregnant women in Hollywood FLAUNT their stuff.. there are so many outfits .. it is "hip" to be pregnant (Christina Aguilera, Nicole Kidman, Naomi Watts.. on and on... )
This would of been her last pregnancy, given her age...
She doesn't seem the type of woman that would dress like a bag lady during this time..
She's an attention seeker..
Her fashion choices would of reflected that
So I conclude..her frumpy outfits during this time, to me spell... the only thing she could wear to "hide" something
Silly I know this is fluff talk but in the whole mess of weirdness of things.. I think this is a little interesting tidbit
Jersey Shore,about the change in Bristol's chest size: There have been suggestions that to hide the fact that she was nursing, she had to pad herself so there would be no leaks evident.
makes sense
Really look at the MySpace pages of Mercedes Johnston! Not that they are fake or photoshopped but that they are real. Why would SP and Bristol be in the background as an “accessory”? My opinion on that is the picture was meant to be seen by Track (who was in training in the Army at the time). The picture shows family support and love of baby Trig. It also shows “acceptance” of Trig being called “brother” and not son.
I've just always assumed that Trig was born with a midwife. I would imagine that by law the midwife would have been bound to secrecy. And that if they didn't know it was a DS baby, they wouldn't have known in advance of possible complications.
_________
I believe Faking a Pregnancy was the only way to difuse rumors about Bristol. It brilliantly shifted the focus to Sarah. And yall are right. Had Sarah known the baby was DS, she would have milked that for all it was worth from the minute she announced.
I suspect that Levi was “coached” to kiss Trig at the RNC.
I am confused. The Palin's were in People this week with NO photos of Tripp?? Isn't that very weird?
Are they making a better money deal with another publication?
Or maybe Bristol put her foot down and said NO to any more publicity by her narcissistic mother? Or the baby needs to be older so the birth date can be fudged?
Money is the usual motivator for Palin (see per diem, Neimans) so the only normal reason for no photos yet would be that The Star has the option now for big money?
Or, there is no baby yet.
"That baby was definately born that day."
How can you possibly know that? Were you there?
Morgan,
My understanding from Naked Truth's comment was that she and Pat exchanged e-mails. The "etc" made it look like the reply within Naked's comment was not Pat's full e-mail response. If I'm wrong, then I stand corrected.
I had no idea that it was not really an e-mail exchange, but was instead part of an actual interview. Is this posted on some site that I am not aware of? Is Naked a journalist?
Two things. We've never got a conclusive answer to why CBJ misquoted Piper's birth year. This is a big mistake for media release summary of medical records. Also, didn't Palin say that CBJ delivered Piper?
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2001/03/23/local_headlines.txt
http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/11/03/19/110308SHP.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf
As for Mercedes myspace, she couldn't have called him her nephew on the page. This would essentially have been the same as her going to school the next day and showing the photos claiming he was her nephew.
Myspace and facebook are a big part of the under 25 generation, but I don't think some of the older generation truly appreciate how it is used and what it means. This is basically where you publicly announce your romantic relationships, update people on your social life, and connect with friends/family.
If she knew the truth, she also knew that she was not allowed to speak about it to all her friends (who probably have myspace or facebook). But it does demonstrate that she was proud of this baby and wanted to show the world.
I may be mistaken, Craig, but I was under the impression that she was referring to the email exchange between Palin and Dougherty. Perhaps Naked Truth can clear this up.
If I was wrong, then I clearly owe you an apology. If you are wrong, you owe Naked Truth one.
After that, we should probably move on as we don't want to blog to degenerate into a personal pissing match over what is or isn't said at ADN. Nor do we want to derail it to discuss what Craig said in his comments over at ADN. I'm sure we'd prefer to kee our discussion on what Audrey's written and not what Craig has said.
I'm sure Craig agrees.
Right, Craig....? ;-)
BlueTx,
I have two kids also, both were induced. I disagree that being induced or not induced can effect the looks of a newborn but I do agree that having a c-section versus having a vaginal delivery can possibly effect the looks of a newborn.
My daughter who was induced and came vaginally looked a mess at birth to me. But my son who was also induced but came via c-section came out looking much better.
I don't recall hearing the good doctor state that SP had a c-section.
Trig looks older on that picture because he is older in my opinion. But you have your opinion and that's o.k. too.
The naked truth is always chasing a well-dressed lie.
I think it was a little bit of “eff you SP” on the part of Mercedes Johnston. SP probably didn’t know that the pictures were up on MySpace until America was looking and not just friends of Mercedes. Notice “0” comments on most of the pictures. The pictures were probably supposed to be private but teenage rebellion takes over sometimes and also regret. MySpace also lets you get your feelings out, a little bit of therapy without having to pay a professional! Also on the prom pictures: Bristol and Mercedes picture shows me that Bristol was a part of the stream of pictures because she was the one “gal” who was left out of the actual prom.
Morgan and Craig,
I was referring to an e-mail reply that editorsblog sent to me directly. But yes, it ended in etc.
I thought when I received the e-mail that it looked like a similar reply that I had seen somewhere else so this is probably what Morgan is referring to.
Craig, you and I will probably never agree much on anything because I am one of 'those people' that you commented on in Pat's blog.
I agree with Morgan, enough with this thing with Craig, its time to move on to more serious business and undress this SP lie.
Also too ;) InLaw! Meaning adoption of baby thru a law proceeding!
Thank you, Naked Truth. We need to always be mindful of the attempts to make commenters personalities and actions the topic.
This is reccurring tactic, although some are more subtle about it than others. Or they have been in the past, at least.
Lately they're just getting downright sloppy. And I, for one, am deeply disappointed. This is a substantial blog and we have high standards, even for those we suspect of being trolls.
:-)
Notice on the Mommy InLaw picture and comment; it is the only one not “colorful” in words or picture quality.
Thank you so much for your work Audrey, Morgan and many others. This is my first post, just another loving mom who smelled a stinky, houseful of rats with Sarah Palin's wild stories. I'm not sure if she realizes that the people who actually post on this blog are probably a ridiculously small fraction of readers who follow this blog regularly but I'm sure there are thousands of others who like myself have not posted for various reasons.
Apologies if this has been posted before but I was just at Meghan McCain's blog looking at pictures of the Palin family during the Republican convention. She has many interesting pictures revealing more of the same Palin dynamics. Quite a few beautiful pictures of Bristol holding Trig and a tiny few of Sarah Palin doing several variations of her "how to hold a sack of potatoes" while wearing heels...and not smudging expensive makeup ...
One that made me laugh is when she is holding Trig and gazing forward, clearly preoccupied... it is just too easy to project that she is fantasizing about the decorating re-haul she will impose on the oval office as soon as she fulfills her destiny... you know the red-flocked wallpaper and velvet paintings will look so good there! Anyway, these are at mccainblogette.com.
Anyway, I've just exceeded my own quota of cattiness for the day BUT thought others might be interested in the pics.
Also interesting that her blog seems to confirm that there must have been some incident that caused a falling out that would result in her refusing to comment on Palin. She clearly really likes, at the very least, the Palin children at the beginning of the campaign. If there wasn't an "incident", I find it surprising that she wouldn't dredge up something, even superficial, to say about how much fun she had on the campaign with the kids, something like that, even if she did tire of Palin and her antics.
Enough for now... thanks again to everybody.
Just a follow-up to what I just posted. This is the link to the specific day with alot of photos of the Palins.
http://mccainblogette.com/postings/083008_0928.shtml
Sorry, I don't know how to do "tiny url"s. If it doesn't work, go to mccainblogette.com to past posts and the day where the heading is "Governor Sarah Palin" or something like that on the day she was chosen as his running mate.
The sounds of silence from Gov. Palin.
No statement, no joy in shouting for all the world that she Trig's birth mother.
How long would it take -
"I SP gave birth to Trig Palin at MatSu Regional Medical Center on 4/18/08 with CBJ in attendance"
"I, CBJ, confirm that I attended SP as she gave birth to her son Trig on 4/18/08 at MatSu Regional Medical Center."
Clearly, this has nothing to do with her son - it's only about her political posturing.
So sad for her child.
T in Canada -- excellent, as usual. I agree.
The thing that bothers me is your comment:
". . . one of the things that fascinates me so much about this story is the sheer insanity of it, and the psychology behind a person who thinks nobody sees or suspects their crazy behaviour."
I think we have to admit that MANY do not see or suspect it.
That's why I value (among other reasons) Craig's presence on this blog: he has a different view and presents it in an intelligent way.
So I ask you, Criag:
1. Do you think SP was preg or not? Before you answer, look at this.
2. If "not preg," do you think it matters?
Blue Tx,
How do you know the Palins and the Johnstons are close?
REGINA,
those 2 pictures alone
EXPOSE THE WHOLE LIE
that SP pulled over the nation.
if you have not seen them, here they are: http://tinyurl.com/9cxeqb
...
T in CANADA,
great analysis, very close to what i believe happened.
i, like you, think BP kept the fact of her pg for a long time. which gave mom a very narrow window to make her pillowed abdomen grow gradually and incrementally.
the reason we pursued that GUSTY pictures was their realization that as SP was going to be under the national media's scrutiny: they did not have persuasive pictures of her in full-term pregnancy mode.
thus the taking those pictures in august to make up for the deficit.
Interesting that SP stated recently that her interviews with Katie Couric went poorly. Here's a question that SP seemed to know a lot about. She was more informed and opinionated on this topic than on which newspapers she reads or about Supreme Court rulings. She actually answers this question quite well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v77WekmM8F8
CasaCalvo -
"The Palins and Johnstons are close families."
Good question. Since I don't know any of them personally, the only thing I can offer is that they live about 4 miles apart according to GoogleMaps. That's pretty close!
Maybe BlueTx will elucidate.
:)
BlueTx: There will be nothing left to pick apart except what has already been picked apart.
Ah, but there are too many people involved from too many families with motives and grudges and axes to grind. And there are events to unfold, babies to grow up, marriages to take place, and campaigns to run. What I'm trying to say is that maybe we've picked apart everything we have so far, but life will certainly give us more.
Since I wasn’t paying attention to this when it was happening I have been visiting old threads and blogs from the first week in September. A lot of people who claimed they either knew the family or were from Wasilla commented on the obvious misconceptions that were out there in the beginning. If you have the time they are great sources of genuine information given at a time when the posters didn’t realize the enormity of the situation and were speaking completely extemporaneously.
For instance one blog was all about the pictures posted and claiming they were Bristol-partying, handling a gun, etc. So many of the responses were angrily saying that was Sadie. And on this post more than once and on others I’ve seen people are saying that Levi and Bristol met in the summer of 2007 and started dating immediately (SP says they have dated for three years). Now people aren’t posting this to establish a timeline they are clarifying the relationships among the teens.
In looking at these past posts and the discussions we have had about Sadie’s pictures I don’t believe she and Bristol were close. I believe they were friendly with each other because of Levi.
One of Sadie’s best friends, Amber, states in a blog that she only knows OF Bristol and has never spoken more than one complete sentence to her. I don’t believe the Palins and the Johnstons are close friends or even social friends. And I really don’t think SP would want anyone to think so either.
Blue Tx
SP does not have to cooperate for the investigation to continue. Nixon blocked his investigation in every way and the truth still came out. Where is Woodward, Bernstein and Felt for babygate??
Well ha you almost got me – when has she ever cooperated??
For what it's worth, I've always found this quote rather strange.
From the KTUU page announcing Trig's birth, quote attributed to SP's father:
"She's tired, yeah. She traveled, well, she was at that convention, traveled all night, gave birth this morning, what have you, and hasn't slept today. She's tired," he said.
"What have you" ???????? I find that a very odd thing to say following "gave birth this morning."
Just sayin.
SP is still trying to plow thru that door with all the upcoming media events. I guess it is up to us anonymous bloggers in pj’s; we are going to have to keep up the pressure. Mudflats and the other political sites in Alaska are doing an excellent job on the political “gates”. I noticed that during the campaign trail there was a definite switch from “friendly” to “not so friendly” between McCain and Palin. It was right around the time Andrew Sullivan, Cajun Boy, ABC News and others where asking about SP’s medical records. I think that SP found out about this website and blog during all those medical records discussions. Therefore SP had to submit the Dr. Johnson letter (still questionable) on election eve. SP was definitely noticeably upset during the McCain concession speech. I think she got a little bit of a “talking to” from McCain and he told her that he knew all or most of her dirty little secrets. SP probably thought that the baby gate would die after the election but she found out that this site is still going strong. The pressure was on in late December because of the pre-announcements of Bristol’s new baby. The pressure was also on the Johnston family at this time. SP was forced to make some kind of new announcements of “Tripp” and drop-outs. The Johnston’s have been “forced” to make some announcements as well. I think that Audrey and everyone who contributes here have done an excellent job of keeping the pressure on SP and I think there will most likely be some new material to work when she does these latest interviews.
OutsiderSA 12:35 AM said...
For SP not going to the dinner, that would be a public exposure requiring BP to tag along to baby sit. There are many ways this could go.
She is still PG or has a new baby.
Trig would be a handful away from his natural mother.
SP would not get past scrutiny leaving a 7mo baby behind as she so adamantly paraded him around at 4mo.
Exposure at this time would be too risky.
-------------------------------
According to the TS site, she will be at that CPAC thing, and is a speaker. Will she drag the kids along to that too? Or will she skip it? Are the kids invited? Too wierd, too many questions.
I don't think Tripp is born yet, so that would mean Bristol can't go. Maybe she'll just take Willow and/or Piper? After all, school is certainly not a priority in her world!
Sarah in SC @11:34
"She's tired, yeah. She traveled, well, she was at that convention, traveled all night, gave birth this morning, what have you, and hasn't slept today. She's tired," he said.
From article in ADN:
"They landed in Anchorage around 10:30 p.m. Thursday and an hour later were at the Mat-Su Regional Medical Center in Wasilla."
SHE TRAVELLED ALL NIGHT???
http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html
Amy1;
I most definitely think she was pregnant and gave birth to Trig. Notice that I said the word "think" and not "know" (a distinction that hopefully everyone has maintained).
I won't regurgitate all my rationales regarding Sarah and Trig from prior threads (because its not about me!). Those that care to know can seek them out.
If it is a hoax, so be it. Just another wacked-out politician to add to the list. I would submit that if it is a hoax, and even a double hoax, involving the latest newborn, then it will inevitably explode into public view at some point. Something as impossibly convoluted and deception-riddled as all this would have to be, will soon break under its own weight.
But if it doesn't, how many months or years will go by before anyone who believes in a deception will reconsider their opinion?
MidnightCajun asked:
Dangerous, did you ever have a sister or teenaged girls? There's a lot of rivalry between sisters, especially when they are that close; it's hard to get one to even do the dishes for the other. I can't believe even the nicest, most loving sister would drop out of school and cut herself off from her boyfriend and friends and athletics and proms etc in order to fake a pregnancy and take the "shame" on herself by deflecting suspicion from her sister! Willow may be the mother (anything's possible), but the Bristol-covering-for-her part of the scenario just doesn't pass the "believable motivation" test and muddies the water.
Do I have sisters? Like crazy!! I have four sisters, 7, 4 and 2 years older, and 5 years younger than me.
Bristol DID cut herself off from friends etc. by moving to Anchorage to live with her aunt and switching schools. I'm simply suggesting a plausible alternative hypothesis for those actions that don't include her do so because she was pregnant.
I agree it would be an unusual thing to occur, but SP was very high-profile to be the first choice to fake the pregnancy. Sp also announced the pregnancy (real or fake) so late after keeping it a secret. Bristol-as-first-faking-choice addresses this indisputable fact. With any new evidence, we should all reconsider our theories, and I will.
I noticed that someone stated the Bristol traffic accident was when she was leaving a medical clinic. While it was near a clinic, there's no evidence Bristol was there for any reason. It could just be a coincidence. But it is a question that is non-invasive and could be answered.
I don't anyone has enough experience with enough family dynamics to determine if Bristol would cover for Willow or not. I subscribe to the "don't judge until you'e walked a mile" school of thought. For that reason, if SP did fake the pregnancy, I don't think it reflects any particularly character flaw. She probably had mixed motives which would be understandable.
Besides, there's plenty else in her character to disqualify her. If she had encouraged a pregnant teen daughter to get an abortion, then she'd be a hypocrite, which is far worse than a liar in personal matters.
This will have to be my only post today as I'm very busy. But I want to thank everyone whose posted feedback on my brief. It was a first draft and rushed.
I plan to clean it up and re-issue when I get the chance in the next week or so. When I do, I will lead with the logic behind a faked pregnancy, which from multiple posts of various theories, many have lost sight of.
Dangerous
"This was his (Pat Dougherty's)reply via e-mail:
'We saw Palin, close up, late in her pregnancy. She was pregnant. We know the doctor; she's not a liar. etc.'"
Dougherty is saying much less than it appears at first glance.
Of course Palin looked pregnant late in her pregnancy when up close. That's true both if she actually were pregnant, and if she were wearing a prosthetic designed to make her appear pregnant.
And a number of posters have already gone into great detail about the noncommittal wording of the doctor's statement. Even if the medical summary contains lies, CBJ isn't necessarily doing the lying.
If this was indeed Dougherty's entire email, then it is a complete non-response. Why even bother sending it?
But then, Craig, how do you explain these photos?
Since you are our articulate resident dissenter, I would value knowing your thinking about what I view as photographic proof. Yes, proof.
Yes Craig, please do answer Amy's questions and answer a few of mine too when you have the time.
In the pictures Amy referenced, do you believe Palin was pregnant?
If you believe she was pregnant then we can deal with that but if you think she wasn't pregnant in those pictures then what can you offer as an explanation for her appearance?
Do you think that the pictures were taken at a different time when Palin wasn't pregnant?
I think these are some concrete questions which we can deal with now and I suggest that we don't avoid them in the interest of everyone's ongoing credibility. I myself would certainly like to be offered some proof that the pictures are of the time stated because that would be the only explanation I could imagine for this not being a faked pregnancy and a coverup by Palin for some reason.
Oops. I think my last comment went into file 13. The gist was: Don't draw conclusions from Sarah's non-revealing pregnancy clothes. She would not have called attention to her belly even if it were real. That would have detracted from her being taken seriously at her job. Sad but true.
And don't assume that because Sarah didn't announce the DS in advance that she didn't know about it before Trig's birth. Sarah would not have announced the DS in advance whether her pregnancy were real or fake. That would have drawn more attention to her pregnancy (and belly) and attracted more criticism while she was flying everywhere-- living dangerously -- and working hard in Juneau while the lege was in session.
WHOA! I just checked out the Mccain blogette pics, and here is one that caught me off-guard:
http://mccainblogette.com/postings/083008_0928/62.jpg
Anybody see how well Trig is holding his head up?
bluetx:
I thought you were done because there was nothing more to say?
Oh and also because SP won this round...
However, now I see you are back with some definitive statements and information for us. How kind of you!
For example:
That baby was definitely born that day.
The Palins and Johnstons are close families.
SP said she will no longer try to prove that Trig is her son. She has bigger fish to fry.
I don't think you are Sarah Palin or that you have a her personal cell phone number and therefore have access to first hand info that we don't have. I think you are just a Sarah-fan who enjoys trying to make us 'see the light' and also want to cast doubt whenever you can.
But here is what I also think.
I know Sarah Palin has bigger fish to fry. We all do. This isn’t my biggest fish by any means. But I for one check in on this blog because I KNOW how much it bothers SP. I know she checks it or has someone on her staff checks it. And I know they check it because they want to know what has turned up lately. I know they freaked when that ‘Nail in the coffin picture’ showed up. Remember they went to a pretty concerted effort to scrub picture and suppress information. They also did not like when Morgan and others started looking closely at the Gusty pictures. I bet they were as amazed as we were as to what the effects of a few light filters can do on dark images.
They have also invested a considerable amount of time and effort in hiding Bristol Palin not only last Spring but also in the last few months. Seems odd to me why they would do that.
There are still no pictures of Tripp. That seems beyond odd to me.
There is still no definitive proof that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig (despite what you or she say.) And her saying that she has proved it and is done ‘proving it’ may convince some people, but not those who are paying attention.
I know Sarah has bigger fish to fry. But the problem for her is that this annoying little blog just won't go away. It hard for her to get to the kitchen to fry those giant fish when in the back of her mind there is always the niggling doubt that something else is going to turn up that expose her.
MSM won’t pick up this story. Most legit left-wing sites won’t touch it because it looks like we are ‘picking on kids’. I also believe left-wing sites won’t touch it because they want Palin around in 2012.
But this story will never go away. It will always be bubbling under the surface and something will bubble up to put some more ‘nails in the coffin’. I also know Sarah knows that and I also know that she can’t make it go away because if she could – she would!
I just want to do my part to make sure there is an outlet for those ‘nails’. And this blog is a great outlet. I also want to thank you for doing your part and helping to keep the blog afloat.
Welcome back.
Amy1: Your 5th picture should be dated 4/13.
sandra in oregon
I found this shot of Bristol Palin at the convention to be interesting. It is one of the few shots that show her as truly pregnant (in other words a good shot of her belly).
http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=39921607gh5.jpg
If there was ever a comment that said to me that the McCain campaign was ever aware of the "truth" it is this comment by Meghan McCain http://www.mccainblogette.com/postings/090108_2242.shtml
It seems like we've entered an indefinite holding pattern: the totality of evidence as of today suggesting a fake pregnancy isn't sufficient to persuade the MSM, and the evidence supporting SP as Trig's mom isn't sufficient for most posters on this blog to give up the cause. There's no "smoking gun," either way.
If Trig's birth was indeed a hoax, then, as Craig said, it will eventually collapse of its own weight. Too many people will know or have observed something for the lid to be kept on it forever. Someone will eventually spill the beans.
But, barring the emergence of an eyewitness to some part of the hoax, repeated cries for "proof" of SP being Trig's mom will fall on deaf ears. SP may have many faults, but one thing she is good at is politics: she knows that the vast majority of Americans either don't know about this issue, don't care, or think she is Trig's mom (otherwise the MSM would be all over it). The very small sliver of the electorate that demands proof of Trig's birth and/or is convinced the birth was faked won't ever vote for her anyways--Andrew Sullivan being the poster boy. So why should she do anything to appease this group alone?
I know this has probably been discussed but can someone enlighten me again on the Texas trip timeframe.
I still don't understand why Palin went straight to a hospital in Wasilla if she wasn't really in labor? And if she wasn't really in labor why did the doctor induce her?
That sounds contradictory to me.
Either she was in labor or she wasn't. It does not sound from any reports, including her own, that she was in labor otherwise she most certainly would not have boarded an airplane for a 12 hour trip. If she was in any kind of labor her doctor would NOT have approved any airplane travel.
So if she wasn't in labor and she was one month early why the heck would they induce her?
I've had 4 kids - The first time I was induced because my son was four weeks late. They broke my water.
The second time I was three weeks late and went into labor (contractions), but they had to break the water manually to speed labor up - baby came 3 hours later.
The third time baby was right on time and I started having contractions so we went to hospital. Labor stopped so they broke the water to induce me and I gave birth 3 hours later.
The fourth time it was a week to my due date and I was signing in at the doctor's office for my regular appt when my water broke all over the doctor's floor. They told me go straight to the hospital. Baby was born 4 hours later. I was 43 years old.
Where does Sarah's strange story fit into a normal delivery?
If she was late - okay induce.
If her water broke - okay get to the hospital - baby is on the way.
If she had regular contractions and was dialated but water didn't break - okay induce - baby will be here very shortly.
Where does that "you have mild contractions, slight leakage, give a speech, take a 12 hour plane trip, everything settles down, the baby is a month early but what the heck, let's induce anyway" scenario come into play?
And people wonder why we don't believe her or her doctor?
A few quick things: I saw on a local news show this morning that People magazine would not pay big bucks for pictures of Tripp unless SP was in the pictures, too. She's apparently refusing to be involved in the "pay for pictures" business due to political/ethical reasons, per People. However, the "young couple are continuing to negotiate with US Magazine who may bite even without the famous grandmother in the pictures"--per the reporter.
#2...I would expect SP to speak at CPAC because the National Governors Association Annual meeting in DC ends a day or so before CPAC starts, also in DC (a couple blocks apart). All the governors in the US attend that annual meeting and SP has always gone, so I suspect she will go to the governors' meeting and spend an extra day or two and speak at CPAC.
Finally, even IF she had it, I don't think SP will present any real proof. Lately it seems like she seems to like the limelight, and keeping this issue going keeps her name in the news.
I'm very suspicious of the e-mails by Pat Dougherty. Why respond to every "crazy blogger" who e-mails you? ("There is no story" when we know now there was).
"We saw Palin, close up, late in her pregnancy. She was pregnant. We know the doctor; she's not a liar. etc."
That's hardly a credible response, especially for a newspaper. Is that the kind of journalism they are practicing? Should journalists drop the Blagojevich story simply because someone says they know he's not a liar?
It feels like an automatic response. Perhaps what they were instructed to reply?
I commented on Cajun Boy's blog because after everything that happened he was telling the truth. THERE WAS A STORY!!!!! I asked what he thought about it and this is what he said:
"@palin pregnancy rumors....there were, ahem, rumors that the paper was under legal threat by a team of RNC lawyers. there may have even been some sort of cease and desist order. under what grounds i'm not sure, but that's what i heard and was never able to confirm definitively."
Don G and Craig:
The source of these photos is:
1. The Rep Gov Conference,
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/345168.html
2. Photo from a family's vacation snaps, and confirmed by other ADN photos of that day:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3081747947/
3. This is the series that Andrea Gusty confirms is authentic.
Please -- answer my question: If
SP was pregnant, how do you explain these photos? I do value your viewpoint.
If you were trying to hide your teenage daughter’s pregnancy by ‘faking’ your own pregnancy, your whole family would most likely have to be in on it and keep the secret. But if you have a six- year- old in the house….how do you ensure she doesn’t inadvertently spill the beans?. How many of SP's deceptions were to protect not only her oldest daughter, but her youngest one as well?
Sandra -- thanks! Aug 13. I'll change it on the next version. Still Week 35, though! Good to get all these nits fixed on these photos at this point.
Amy1 and Don G;
I'm not sure if you're trying to play some kinda "gotcha" game with me or what? Obviously, if I believe she was pregnant and delivered Trig in April, and if these pictures are from the first four months of 2008 (as they seem to be) then I would believe them to be authentic.
Amy1, you seem to be implying that "proof" in this case means the indisputable truth to you. If so, I would just ask why such pictures haven't resonated with any of the rest of the blogosphere or media or political action groups in some sort of "Holy Crap" realization from September (or even from April) to today? They haven't exactly been classified all this time.
But if these pictures have clinched the whole Palin Hoax narrative for you, that is obviously your right to believe it.
Have you all seen this yet?
http://www.ktva.com/news/ci_11467343
[quote]Governor Palin's continuing national attention is changing the way local media members will be allowed to bring Alaskans upcoming session information.
For the first time lawmakers are requiring press members to sign an official agreement.
A big reason the constitutional freedom of the press exists is to make sure reporters have free access to cover topics like the legislature, and act as public watchdogs.
The way it has always worked, Juneau’s Capitol Press Corps members agreed in principle to follow rules, and were given a press pass.
Now they'll have to sign a document to receive one."
Strange article in People magazine's January issue on the Palin and Johnston families. Is there any misstep by any of the members that is not noted either in the text or in the pictures? How awful!
No picture of a new baby, BUT note the strange collection of pictures and the less than flattering comments in the text and accompanying the photos. No recent photos in the bunch, and it appears none taken by a People photographer. What gives?
The picture of the Palin clan is dated 2007!!!! Bristol has very full, mature looking breasts and a slightly protruding midsection. Compared to the athletic picture of her in a loose fitting jersey (not skin tight) there would seem to be quite a weight gain after the school athletic picture, and a change in the abdominal profile, for the portion you can see in the sports top. The numbers on the jersey are not distorted on her trunk and the jersey material is lax and falls in folds around shoulders, bust, and waistline, though the picture does not show the lower torso. Check it out.
I submit that the picture of Bristol and Sarah was not taken by the magazine to be published in the magazine as there is a hand behind Sarah's left shoulder that is definitely some woman's. Note the fingernail polish on the finger and thumb that's visible if you closely examine the picture. The hand definitely does not belong to Bristol and it is not a male hand.
Bristol's midsection is occluded by the leather chairback in which Sarah is seated.
People magazine dates the photos or has photos we all know the timing of, and must have sourced date information from someone who knew the timing on them. But, Bristol appears quite hefty in the family picture for someone also claiming athletic activity in the same year. Something changed?
It is imperative that answers be found for this sicko administration in Alaska to be brought to answer to the truth of their deeds, so the bums can be "thrown out." The most beneficial of all would have to be the Palin and Johnston offspring who could have the glare of the limelights removed from their faces, allowing them to seek some sense of normalcy!
GraceR's post makes a lot of sense; it explains why we're hearing a lot from People magazine re Tripp without seeing pictures.
I saw a video of NBC's Today Show; a reporter from People was being interviewed re Bristol, Levi and Tripp. The reporter talked quite a bit about them, saying that the wedding would likely be spring or summer this year. She had clearly spoken with Bristol and the Palins, maybe even had visited them in Wasilla.
It's hard to believe that People would go on about Tripp's birth unless they were reasonably certain that it had actually taken place--especially if they were negotiating a picture deal.
Could Sarah or her people have started the People Magazine picture rumors? That could be an excuse to buy them more time to find "Tripp".
They could use this rumor to justify their hesitance to show a picture, claiming that they are waiting for a bidder to get the exclusive rights.
I have been trying to think of any reason why Levi Johnston (the guy who wrote on his myspace "I don't want kids") would go along with all this. (I believe Trig and Trip are both Bristol's kids and that Trip is not born yet).
I have to wonder, where DNA tests done (this is usually done AFTER a child is born as the test could cause a spontaneous abortion...something like 1 in 200)?
Or did he go along to cover for his sister Sadie?
Or was he threatened with "We know your Mom is selling drugs, and unless you want her arrested, you will go along with this. Bristol wants you, and what Bristol wants, Bristol gets" (especially true if Bristol is holding the truth about Trig as leverage).
He started to make noises (hence all the comments that Levi and Bristol "might" get married this year) and as a reminder, they had Mom arrested.
Let SP try for 2012 and the blogger,s won,t have to stop her the GOP will. You know how nasty rumors get
started and can be proven by people who know the truth. It would be nice if that happened sooner rather than later.
Shelby,
I assume that induced meant labor was brought on by pitocin, rather than just hastened by manually breaking the amniotic sac.
So Sarah's induction was because of the "slight leakage" of fluid in the wee hours in Texas. A broken or leaking sac meant she needed to be induced within 24 hours because of risk of infection, even if she had no contractions, even if the baby were 3 weeks too early.
My current theory is that Bristol was induced, possibly that night, so for Sarah likewise to claim to have been induced she needed to say her fluid had leaked. Then CBJ could be vague about the mom, but not lie about inducing.
Which reminds me of what a weird medical statement Palin released. I get doing a statement rather than releasing a bunch of records. Obama did it. Palin could too.
But if the idea is for the doctor to tell us if the candidate has problems that could impact job performance over the next four years (like Cheney's heart problems or McCain's melanomas), why were we told that Trig was induced --or told about his (then) current health, for that matter? Why did CBJ focus on Palin's baby? Almost as if she -- or whoever wrote it -- were trying to answer us so-called bloggers in PJs rather than the voting public.
Craig wrote:
"I'm not sure if you're trying to play some kinda "gotcha" game with me or what? Obviously, if I believe she was pregnant and delivered Trig in April, and if these pictures are from the first four months of 2008 (as they seem to be) then I would believe them to be authentic.'
I don't think of it as a gotcha game Craig but you can call it that. I just want you to answer a couple of questions: You seem to be now saying that you think the pictures are authentic. Do you believe the dates are authentic? And if you do then can you explain why Palin is obviously not looking pregnant in those pictures? Or do you think that she is looking pregnant in those pictures?
I just think that your credibility hangs on you offering some straight answers to these questions. Do you not want everyone on this blog to think you are being objective and that you want to know the truth? Or is it that you don't care what the evidence says because you have chosen what you want to believe?
The ball's in your court Craig and I won't be asking the questions again. Here's where you remain credible or you lose credibility.
Craig wrote: "But if these pictures have clinched the whole Palin Hoax narrative for you, that is obviously your right to believe it."
Just as you have a right to believe what you want to believe Craig. The only thing is, I'm asking you above what you believe and now it becomes a crediblity issue with me. I think it will also become a credibility issue for many more people here too depending on how you answer. If you indeed answer. Either way Craig, the buck stops here IMHO.
respectfully, Don G.
The Buffalo Beast just published its annual list of the most loathsome people of the year, 2008 edition, and guess who made #1?
http://tinyurl.com/a2op65
Caution: This list is R-rated heavy satire, but accurate, informed commentary. If you are a right winger, skip it, don't risk a coronary.
Amy1:
Have you (or anyone else from this blog) communicated directly with the folks at the ADN re your photo sequence? Although it's pretty likely they already know about palindeception.com, it couldn't hurt to ping them.
Obviously the editor Pat Dougherty and reporter Lisa Demer should be contacted.
Other ADN staff members who have looked into Trig's birth include Kyle Hopkins and Michael Carey; you might try contacting them as well.
Since these pictures are of such intense interest in supporting the idea of a hoax, I'm wondering if Audrey has ever considered giving these pictures, both altered and unaltered, to some unbiased doctors who are well-versed in prenatal care and delivery, and gotten their best-guess opinion on whether Sarah could have given birth to a DS baby on X date, based upon these pictures taken on x dates.
I realize Audrey's experience in this area, but it would seem interesting to get some other opinions. The doctors could be left unidentified and be given whatever additional pregnancy/birth data is publicly available regarding Sarah's other children, if that matters.
I wonder whether any of them would feel comfortable guesstimating if it was unlikely or not unlikely or even just undeterminable that she could have delivered this child, based upon those pictures.
Maybe none would feel comfortable getting involved, even anonymously.
Just a thought.
Alex suggested that Trig may habe been delivered by a midwife. Wouldn't a midwife be considered a "medical care provider" under the federal HIPAA law, and thus be required to keep medical information private without the consent of the patient? After all, she or he performed a medical service, delivering a baby, no?
BlueTx, I never considered that SP would, as you say, "give me" anything. I was thinking more along the lines of her giving her son something - the knowledge that his mother (?) took pride in his birth and proclaimed it to all the world, not that she hid it.
I was thinking she'd give her family something as well - the knowledge that they are her pride and joy, her first and foremost consideration. Apparently not.
It seems Todd (Iron Man) Palin doesn't exactly have a steel backbone as he has mounted no defense of his family, his son, or even his wife.
How sad for all of them to realize that SP's political concerns trump their family integrity.
Fault me if you wish, but I can imagine no "bigger fish to fry" than the welfare of my family. Good Lord Blue.
SP is morphing into a caricature and will now always be associated with birth scandals, drug arrests, troopergate and whatever else comes along. The RNC & McCain have "bigger fish to fry" themselves and are already putting distance between them. SP's "outsider" act is about to become reality - as she finds herself out in the cold. After SP's lack of response to the Alaskans in the remote villages facing freezing temps with no fuel or food, the people there are celebrating the response of Lisa Murkowski. Perhaps she's the rising star in Alaska and SP is yesterday's "news".
So simple, not intrusive, precise & acceptable to most:
"I CBJ confirm that I attended as SP gave birth to Trig Palin on 4/18/08 at MatSu Regional."
"I, SP, confirm that statement with pride and gratitude for this blessing"
One reason (not Oh, but they might not believe me!)
she can't say this simple thing?
Hi Craig,
Definitely no "gotcha" game.
I believe these photos are authentic. In fact, that's why I'm waving them around once again -- so if anyone has info to the contrary, they will speak up. (I do know that the far right photo should be dated Mar 13.)
These photos have NOT been seen in this way until Audrey midwifed them into our consciousness. The first one was always a v dark photo (in the preg area), with the amazing flatness of SP's stomach never visible because no one ever adjusted the contrast as Audrey midwifed the contributors here to do.
The second photo came from a vacationer's flickr post, someone on this blog found it, and others rushed to check around and discovered that newspapers of the day confirmed the event, the outfit, all of it -- except the press coverage did not offer a photo clearly showing the pregnancy.
The third, photo, of course, was not discovered until recently, and I'm sure you know its status. It is only thanks to this blog that all of this came to light.
So these photos have not been visible to MSM, and certainly not visible as an array that shows an impossible-to-explain situation -- unless it was a hoax.
I believe photos, if authentic, are about as good proof as one can get. Am I wrong?
Yes, I have suspected from the beginning that the preg was a hoax, but as I have stated several times on this blog, I have trouble believing it, just as many others have. I wish to leave the family out of it. So I am not contributing to ideas of who did what to whom, and when.
The only thing that matters to me on this issue is WAS SHE? or WASN'T SHE? Did the ethics queen tell the truth?
So I look at these three photos and wonder why it seems so obvious to me and not others. So incontrovertible. What passes through your mind that makes you feel you can say "maybe"?.
That's why I'm asking you -- YOU, personally. How can you not be convinced, and case closed? I ask YOU because I think the quality of your answer will be high.
And I also ask you all -- anyone -- where is the chink in what seems to me to be a rock-solid conclusion? I want to know if there is any possible CREDIBLE way to explain this away?
Just tell me how you can still be on the fence? I just don't see it. And I do want to know. The truth.
To T in Canada (January 16, 2009 6:47 AM)...
As far as I am concerned, you have hit the nail on the head.
EVERY single bit of evidence (pictorial and otherwise) can be explained by your explanations.
Thank you for phrasing it all in such a straightforward way.
Can ANYONE put forward ANY verified contradictions to what T in Canada has laid out?
If this is what 4 1/2 to 5 months pregnant looks like with a first pregnancy (Bristol at 4 1/2 or 5 months) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1098766/Sarah-Palin-left-red-faced-pregnant-daughters-future-mother-law-arrested.html
And this is a picture of Sarah at 4 1/2 to 5 months pregnant with her 5th Pregnancy in Vogue Magazine.
Which one looks more "real" to you?
Fellow bloggers, please have a care.
It is clear to me that we have some regular posters whose purpose in adding comments to this site is either to make excuses for fact (fact we can clearly discern in the photographic record), or to muddy the waters and shift attention away from the focus.
Far be it for me to name names. Just read the comments, over days and weeks, and you should easily be able to see who is here looking for answers, and who is here trying to provide answers that exonerate the Snowflake Governor from any deceit.
It is both a blessing and a curse to have such an open board as Audrey has provided. Just because we read it here, doesn't mean it is the truth.
Just sayin'...
I have been thinking a bit about how the Palins determined that Trig was DS at 13 weeks.
CVS is usually performed between 10 and 13 weeks from the last menstrual period. CVS may be chosen over amniocentesis because it may be performed earlier in the pregnancy. http://www.americanpregnancy.org/prenataltesting/cvs.html
Since there were 3 possible fathers names being bandied about early on. In fact there are lots
of early reports about a "Steve Rossi" being the father, as well as a "DILLON KOLVIG", Levi was mentioned later AFTER these two names had been talked about for over a week. maybe they checked them all, or they only tested the Bristol wanted to be a match(Levi) and found him to be a positive match.
*** Lilybart said...
I am confused. The Palin's were in People this week with NO photos of Tripp?? Isn't that very weird?
Are they making a better money deal with another publication?
Or maybe Bristol put her foot down and said NO to any more publicity by her narcissistic mother? Or the baby needs to be older so the birth date can be fudged?
Money is the usual motivator for Palin (see per diem, Neimans) so the only normal reason for no photos yet would be that The Star has the option now for big money?
Or, there is no baby yet.***
The entire People story used old photos. Check the gutter credits, running up the inner edges of the page in tiny print. For an exclusive baby pic story, they would have one credit, most likely 'shot for People by Joe Smith' or something along those lines. And the only 'told to People' quote is in the last paragraph. So this is just a typical tabloid story when no one has real access to the subject. More evidence to me that there is no baby to which People has access. I would bet that IF there is ever an exclusive baby pic story, it will be several months in coming. Sometimes there's a real reason (Lisa Marie Presley just showed her twins at 3 months, possibly so the story would coincide with her father's birthday) but it's also can be to make the age less obvious.
T in Canada wrote:
***And aren't we all aware now that SP will find a way to ignore something she doesn't want to be true?
BP WAS pregnant in the picture that showcases the belly, in the green top - BP may have known or suspected at the time, but SP had no idea. That picture would never have happened. It could have been the way they found out (imagine Sarah at the photomat flipping through the picures... seeing the belly... and thinking, no, say it ain't so! Okay, well, we'll just wait and see, won't we?).***
I always thought BP looked pregnant in that photo. And her outfit wasn't in the same 'tone' as the rest of her family; her jeans had those artful tears and distress marks. If I'd showed up for a family portrait dressed like that, I would've been sent back upstairs to change - and it's not like my family is famous! Between the skintight shirt and ripped jeans, BP was sending a message to her mom...
RE: CasaCalvo's comments about Bristol and Sadie - I agree that they weren't social friends, except for the connection with Levi. I was one who found Sadie's MySpace pages in a Google search, and happened to save them all to my harddrive when I found she had made the pages private later that night. I had gone off leaving them all open in my browser and was able to save them, since I already had them open. I have looked over all the photos quite thoroughly. On about 11 pages, there are no other photos of Bristol socializing with Sadie, except in the "Triggy Bear" and the pink prom dress photos. I shared them with Audrey some time back.
A lot of people on the internet were posting pics of Sadie drinking and saying it was Bristol. So I don't even know if the rumors about Bristol being wild are from anything else than misidentified photos of Sadie.
I was curious that night to find out who Levi was and how old he was. It hadn't been stated yet. There were many drinking photos and at first I assumed Sadie was college-aged. I finally figured out she was just a sophomore in high school (going on Jr).
I really was of the opinion then, and now, that she was considering Triggy her brother's brother (in-law) and was extending that relationship to include herself. It is understandable, to me. (I was closer to my sister-in-law's sister than my sister-in-law, and still consider her "family") I don't perceive any deep meaning about it having to do with her own mother's child.
I'm very open to the pregnancy deception idea and have followed this blog for months, but definitely don't extend it that far.
I will say that if Sherry is hard up, Sadie's lifestyle shows no signs of suffering (at least in her pics from last year). She appeared quite affluent to me, with trips to sunny places, skiing, drinking, and clothes galore.
"I saw on a local news show this morning that People magazine would not pay big bucks for pictures of Tripp unless SP was in the pictures, too. She's apparently refusing to be involved in the "pay for pictures" business due to political/ethical reasons, per People. However, the "young couple are continuing to negotiate with US Magazine who may bite even without the famous grandmother in the pictures"--per the reporter."
I smell a rat. I don't believe this for a second. It has been brought up that apparently the governor is NOT allowed to cash in on her position in this way, so there is no reason why People would insist upon her being in the pictures, and frankly, what they would really want is pictures of Bristol and baby. The notion that People would back out on getting pics of Bristol and baby if Sarah couldn't be in the picture is absolutely ridiculous.
I'm thinking about the pictures in this week's People article again. Only one picture that I don't recognize as being old. Maybe that picture is old too? Maybe whenever People did get a chance to take pictures of the family, they shot that one and simply had not used it before? I am thinking that the entire People article did not involve any actual face to face meeting but was just done with old pictures and some telephone conversation.
Anyway, I think this is a silly ruse - pretending that these mags are so desperate for more Sarah pictures that they would need to negotiate and stall despite having a willing Bristol, Levi and Tripp, ready to be photographed.
BTW, is there really any evidence that Levi is hanging out at the Palin home?
I think Audrey's inference is correct, particularly now that SP is saying she won't do anything to rebut the rumors. A birth certificate listing her and Todd as parents would not be helpful if the date could not be changed -- and Trig had been born while SP was in Juneau. According to a schedule someone posted (sorry did not copy name of the poster), SP flew from Anchorage to Juneau on March 27 and from Juneau to Dallas on April 15.
I hypothesize that since Dr. B-J’s practice involved abused children, she is familiar with how particularly shameful pregnancies and births can (legally) be hidden. It was arranged that Dr. B-J would deliver the baby at someone's home -- or at Mat-Su Hospital if the hospital were willing to cooperate in the concealment, as they might have been in such cases. The pregnant girl/woman, who I assume was Bristol, would come at the point she went into labor and stay until she delivered. SP would be notified, and she would come to the same place and "give birth." Because everyone knew this would have been SP’s fifth pregnancy, and probably would go from labor to delivery quickly, she could say that she happened to be nearby when she felt the onset of labor, and everything went well. If the baby were born at a private home, SP would take the baby to the hospital to be checked out, and for post-natal care if necessary. SP and Todd would legally adopt the baby and their names would be on the official birth certificate, but because SP was in the public eye the birth itself had to be concealed.
What they weren't anticipating was that SP would be in Juneau when Bristol went into labor, and that SP would not immediately return to "give birth." If the birth took place shortly before the Dallas conference, SP would have realized it would look bad for her to dash off and leave "her" newborn baby, and she was not going to miss her moment in the spotlight. SP decided her "delivery" could wait, leaving Dr. B-J and Bristol holding the baby.
In my hypothetical, this could have put Dr. B-J and the hospital in a bind. Dr. B-J had agreed to participate in this deception for Bristol's sake, not to preserve SP's political ambitions. Medical professionals, please correct me, but I believe there are serious regulatory/legal problems if anyone is kept as an inpatient longer than a medical diagnosis warrants. There is not only a problem with obtaining insurance reimbursement; I believe these things can affect hospital accreditation, licensing, eligibility for federal programs, etc.
So SP may have been told (not necessarily at 4 a.m.) that unless she showed up at the hospital by midnight on April 17, Trig would be discharged into Bristol's care, exposing Bristol as an unwed mother.
This would explain SP's early departure from Dallas, but she needed a cover story. What were her options? She thought the afternoon session, in which she was not a speaker, would be boring? She (or Todd) felt ill? That would explain missing the session, but not suddenly leaving on a long airline trip home. A child at home suddenly, seriously ill? That would have to be staged. So SP may have said something about maybe feeling the slightest beginnings of labor. Her father then "helpfully" invented the detail of her "water breaking," not realizing that this transformed what was apparent recklessness into apparent absurd recklessness. She hasn't figured out a new lie that would bail her out of that one.
The e-mail exchange between SP and ADN editor Pat Dougherty suggests she might have authorized Dr. B-J to speak confidentially with him. SP's saying that Dr. B-J "set him straight" doesn't sound like a reference to the last-minute pre-election "release of medical records." It sounds as if Dr. B-J told him something in confidence, and Dougherty agreed to let the ADN investigation drop for Bristol's sake.
In SP's mind, however, that had made it Dougherty's job to make the whole problem go away, prompting her nasty e-mail to him at the end of December, an insult he publicly bore in silence until SP publicly included ADN in her trashing of the media.
Dougherty is evidently very uncomfortable. His calling Audrey and others “nutty” is the equivalent of a squirm. If my surmise is correct, having at least fudged the code of his profession for the sake of someone close to SP, Dougherty is feeling ill-used, like many who have come in contact with her.
Someone pointed out that SP's reference to the ADN's financial condition may have been a veiled threat. Dougherty may be playing the same game. His saying that the investigation was dropped when they were unable to prove what they wanted to prove, i.e., that SP was Trig's birth mother, hints that if the ADN wanted to prove something else, the result might be different. En garde, madame.
It was not an elaborate HOAX. It lasted less than 6 weeks, from March 6th until April 17th. AND apparently, Bristol was nowhere to be found during that entire time, Sarah had a number of appearances in Juneau during that time, she simply needed to "look pregnant". You can fake pregnancy, but faking Not Pregnant is much harder, one simple report from a Bristol sighting would've confirmed Sarah as birth mother. That is another huge factor in the suspicion. She was 17, where were her friends? Simple!
This is my first post to this blog. First I would like to compliment Audrey and Morgan on the quality and integrity of the site and the high standards of the comments section. I greatly enjoy reading the comments for the thoughtfulness and respect that is shown towards each other and to the people that you are talking about, including Sarah Palin and her family members.
What interests me about this story, and SP in particular, is that I research Personality Disorders and how they impact the people around them. Palin exposing/using her daughter Bristol at the beginning of September was what caught my attention. The more I read about SP, the more she fit profile. As I read the MSM I was struck by how, although they questioned aspects of her behaviour extensively, there was a civility to not go the step further and name it. This is partly understandable because there is a deep lack of education about personality disorders. One of the most respected researchers of psychopaths referred to the lack of discussion of their work as them 'whistling in the dark'. This ignorance is dangerous as SP's run for vice president glaringly points out.
The story this blog is following is important. Keep pursuing this.
T in Canada: your posts are great to bring this up. Here are a few of my comments. Although it sure looks like SP has NPD, I do not think that is the case. Narcissistic traits are part of array of traits on the Psychopathic Checklist. Because the narcissism is so glaringly obvious, people assume that is what it is. Narcissists, however, have a few handicaps that makes being tactical a tricky thing for them to maintain. Among other things, they are gullible.
If, however, you combine those narrasistic traits with instrumental aggression, lack of empathy, pathological lying, and several other defined innate traits and life choices, you are looking at the Psychopath Checklist. This checklist was developed by Robert Hare to have a consistent standard to assess psychopaths. (Before this the definition was open to interpretation, causing inconsistencies in earlier studies.) His checklist is the gold standard for all science based research on psychopaths.
Now I am not saying that SP is a psychopath, although one percent of the population is. However, another ten percent of the population scores high enough on the checklist to cause problems and exploit other people. It seems to me that SP is quite high on the checklist, without crossing the threshold at this time. On a scale of 40, a score of 30 qualifies a rating of psychopath for a man. Because of gender differences in how the disorder manifests, the threshold score for women is lower (I believe that it is 27).
There is some confusion on what to call people below the threshold. Hare refers to them as subcriminal psychopaths. Others call them Machiavellians.
When you look at SP's behaviour with an understanding of how people high on the checklist operate, there is an explanation for why nothing in this story seems to make sense.
Would you like to know more?
As for Palin's comments that she's no longer going to "try to prove" Trig is her natural-born baby... I'll just say what one of my wisest friends always says:
Trying is lying.
People don't "try" to do things. They either do them, or they don't. As in, "try" to pick up that fork. You either pick it up, or you don't.
If SP wants to prove Trig is her natural born baby, she should do it. Period. How hard could that be?
For me, what's MISSING from this story is so much more interesting that what is PRESENT.
Which brings me to Baby Tripp.
Bristol's pregnancy was offered to the public as the answer to the question: Who is Trig's mom? Never mind that proving Bristol COULD NOT be Trig's mom is a lot different than proving Sarah IS Trig's mom. But SP is not a strong left-brain, logical thinker, judging from her many rambling interviews.
So where is Tripp?
SP has every incentive to show us Tripp as soon as possible. Especially since Tripp is the manner by which she is "trying" to prove that Trig is hers.
Using Sarah's logic, that would have to mean that since Tripp is the proof that Trig is Sarah's, the absence of Tripp is proof that Trig is NOT Sarah's.
At least until Tripp shows up.
This is why, in addition to whatever conclusive proof SP has on Trig, it is Tripp's birth certificate that I want to see.
Craig,
I believed that you were worried about having the mainstream media attempting to report on this issue by the language that you use in your posts. Here you say:
"I simply gave him my take, based upon the ever-rising bar of acceptability on this blog site, that many doubters will now accept fewer, if any, forms of proof. And they most certainly will not accept a reporter's story in which she has obtained some quotes and has viewed some records and has determined that they exist and appear authentic."
The statement that, "many doubters will now accept fewer, if any, forms of proof." I believe that majority of 'doubters' would be happy with ANY form of proof. I continue to say, medical records would do it for me. I would have accepted a birth certificate, but Audrey has pointed out that this can legally be changed.
The statement, "they most certainly will not accept a reporter's story in which she has obtained some quotes and has viewed some records and has determined that they exist and appear authentic." I can only reply, anyone can give a quote and say anything, yes, we have heard incredible accounts of a labor and delievery, along with a doctor who claimed she didn't believe it was unreasonable to fly with ruptured membranes of a 35 week pregnancy of a Down Syndrome baby being carried by a over 40 multigravita woman. We have heard those quotes, (which is part of the reason a lot of us are here.) but there has been NO ONE to say that they saw any records and verified that they were authentic. Just the opposite. Pat stated that there was no way for them to verify that Sarah Palin was Trigg's mother.
And just think about that for a moment. A woman, a prominent politician, gets pregnant, goes through a pregnancy, labor and delivery, and there is no way for anyone to verify it? To the point where a mainstream media newspaper is unable to give a report that states that the govenor is the baby's mother?!! AND, the family won't provide anything that could quickly put this to bed.
For people to not know that there are MANY things wrong with this whole senerio is I believe one of the reasons that the country is in such dire straits now. Too many people were apathetic and not being diligent with what was happening with the politicians and what they were doing. Even when we know in our gut that something is wrong, too many times we do what we are told when they say, "No need to look at this, just take me for my word, move along, nothing to see here."
Personally, I have vowed, I will never just take them, 'at their word.' and I will always do my own research.
I could go on, but it's late and past time for bed. More to come later.
Deb
Someone mentioned a theory that Mercede could be the mother. She isn't. She commented on one of Wasilla's kids MySpace pages that she was going to be doing something at about the same time we think Trig was born.
By "something", I don't mean that she was mysterious about it. I mean "something" in that I don't remember what exactly it was, but it precluded her from being the mother. Plus, she seems to have been quite visible in the community in the months leading up to Trig's birth.
I just want to squash that one now before anyone starts really speculating.
I know this community is dedicated to just one of Sarah Palin's many lies, but would like to draw your attention to the humanitarian crisis taking place in the villages of the Yukon Delta in Alaska. The villagers are having to choose between heating their homes and buying food. Due to a bad fishing season, there's no money and prices in the region are 3 times higher than in urban areas. One gallon of heating fuel can cost between $9 and $11. The governor has been very slow to respond and her response has been very vague. There are children going to bed hungry and cold.
Alaska's anonymous bloggers managed to raise $7,000 from readers across the US and even further afield.
We offered Audrey financial assistance in the pursuit of the truth, which she graciously refused. I'm sure she would be proud if we contributed to this appeal instead. Palin's children are suffering emotionally as a result of her actions. A greater number of other people's children are suffering as a result of her inaction.
Let's join the ranks of anonymous bloggers who care.
For more information, please visit
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/
have a good read and follow links to other blogs to gain a better perspective.
If you wish to donate, the Mudflats have a Pay Pal button:
http://www.themudflats.net/2009/01/15/alaskas-rural-villages-in-crisis-update/
Thank you.
I know this is a long post, but please take the time to run through it. I’d like to run a scenario past ya’all, something I think explains some lingering questions many of us still have about Gusty’s April 13 interview of Sarah. Three things have continued not to sit right with me (four, if you count the weird disconnected expression on Sarah’s face in the still photo):
1) As has been noted, with only one exception, every time Sarah was photographed from shortly before she announced that she was “pregnant” until her “delivery” on April 18th, she was wearing a scarf. That one exception was the 13th of April, the day of the famous photograph taken on Gusty’s camera, when Sarah was captured from the side with her hands wrapped around a belly that appears easily four times bigger than it did at any other time. Why?
2) Sarah is not known for putting in long hours on the job, to put it mildly. In fact, she spent so little time in Juneau during the last legislative session that people took to wearing pins that read, “Where’s Sarah?” And yet when the session ended at 1 pm on Sunday and everyone else went home, Sarah hung around the legislature until 5pm to give an interview to Gusty. All alone. In a deserted hall lined with empty boxes and the darkened doors of empty offices. It made for very boring and unattractive footage. So why was it set up that way?
3) At the beginning of the 13 April video footage of her interview with Gusty, Sarah is wearing her typical “I’m lying” smirk, and Gusty is practically giggling with glee. Watch it with the sound off and you’d think they were making the whole thing up. Yet this was a real interview, actually aired by KTUU. So what was going on there?
Here’s my scenario: Although Sarah had announced that “her baby” was due the 23rd of May, she knew Trig was really scheduled to be born in mid-April—or else he had already been born and was scheduled to be released from the hospital around the 18th. From the time she announced she was pregnant in early March, she could realistically only add so much padding per week. By 13 April she knew she was running out of time. Yet she also knew there were A LOT of rumors going around; a lot of people didn’t believe her. So she concocted a scheme that would provide her with a photograph she could use to disprove those rumors should it become necessary if and when she was selected for VP--a photograph that would be both easily dated and would show her VERY pregnant. How?
On the last day of the session, Sarah dresses in her usual black outfit, wearing her small fake belly. However, for this one day only she leaves off her trademark scarf. Then, late that afternoon, long after everyone else has gone, she dons a HUGE empathy belly. In the deserted halls of the legislature, she meets Gusty for the interview. The only witnesses are Gusty’s cameraman Scott, and Bill McAllister (soon to be Sarah’s press secretary) and the photographer Dan Carpenter from McAllister’s station. The session has been long and everyone was anxious to get home; there’s no fear they will be seen.
Sarah gives the interview. At the beginning, she and Gusty are both laughing and smirking over the “fast one” they are pulling, although they soon settle down. Watch the interview carefully and you can catch the point at which Carpenter—or perhaps it was really McAllister since it’s a terrible photograph—snaps the still: Sarah is not talking, yet she is very aware that the photo is being taken and poses just so. This is why she appears to be staring off vacantly into space. Her attention is not on the interview but on posing for the still and showing her belly.
Ironically, in the segment Gusty recently aired “proving” that the still photos weren’t faked, Gusty even makes it a point of saying they did not show Palin’s pregnant belly because that was not the focus of the interview. I submit to you that they DELIBERATELY did not show Sarah’s belly. If those Alaskans who had just seen Sarah that day with her “barely showing” belly had suddenly been confronted with a video that night on their television of Sarah looking like she was about to drop a colt, everyone would have known something was up. But after six months, people's memories of just how big Sarah was that day have grown hazy.
In this scenario, only two of the four people present that day need to have known what was going on: McAllister and Gusty (as guys, the cameraman Scott and photographer Dan could easily be expected to be oblivious to the expanding size of their governor’s belly).
So while the photos themselves weren’t fakes, the belly was—and the photos were definitely staged so as to deliberately deceive. We have a quote from Sarah herself, when she is explaining how she was allowed on the airplane so late in her pregnancy, saying she "never really showed." She can't have it both ways: either that statement was a lie, or the April 13 photos are lies.
Vera City wrote about the Psychopathic Checklist 1/16/09 @ 9:22 PM, saying in part, "narcissists, however, have a few handicaps that make being tactical a tricky thing for them to maintain. Among other things, they are gullible."
Sarah Palin fits the bill as far as being gullible is concerned.
Remember the fake Sarkozy phone call prank?
Does that lower SP's checklist score, or raise it? :)
-----------------
tracy discusses the missing Tripp 1/16/09 @ 9:59 PM:
My opinion? The further we get into January without pictures, with only these hearsay statements by relatives, the more I believe there never was a Tripp.
I'm beginning to believe the appearance of Bristol Palin in those September/October pictures of her -- wearing that lacy black dress for the 8/31/08 People convention pictures, the light-colored pencil skirt she wore to greet McCain at the Minneapolis airport, and the slim gray dress that revealed her overinflated breasts at the RNC -- were all examples of a young woman who'd worked very hard to lose weight after her pregnancy, and whose figure (except for those breasts) was rapidly deflating -- perhaps with the help of some Niemann-Marcus couture body-shaping undergarments. And perhaps a pillow, to maintain the fiction.
No wonder she disappeared after the election.
--------------------
midnightcajun, you commented 1/17/09 @ 1:47 AM that Palin, with only one exception, wore a scarf between her pregnancy announcement and her delivery, and that one exception was April 13th.
There was one other time just prior -- the picture taken 3 days before, at the ServeAlaska swearing-in ceremony with Joe Parrish, she didn't wear a scarf either (in that picture her belly -- what you can see of it -- is clearly not as extended/protuberant as it was 3 days later).
So I'm both agreeing with you, and disagreeing with you...:) Your scenario is practically flawless.
I'm going to have to go back and re-look at that Gusty video. I remember seeing the vacant expression on Palin's face as Gusty made her introductory remarks in the video. I'm going to look for the smirking and giggling...
"I don't think you are Sarah Palin or that you have a her personal cell phone number and therefore have access to first hand info that we don't have." LOL...I don't but you can email her on the Alaska governors website
There was a heated discussion on Mudflats on one of the threads where people who are not from Alaska were trying to use that email and a warning message would come up saying that you have to be a resident of Alaska to email the governor. Is there a place in AK called Blue Tx?
sg said:
***I saw a video of NBC's Today Show; a reporter from People was being interviewed re Bristol, Levi and Tripp. The reporter talked quite a bit about them, saying that the wedding would likely be spring or summer this year. She had clearly spoken with Bristol and the Palins, maybe even had visited them in Wasilla.
It's hard to believe that People would go on about Tripp's birth unless they were reasonably certain that it had actually taken place--especially if they were negotiating a picture deal.***
I haven't seen that Today show clip, so I'll go look for it on youtube. But that spring/summer wedding story is something we could ALL say, because that's the story SP has been putting out for some time now. It's not evidence of direct talk with BP or LJ. And if a reporter went to Wasilla and came home with nothing but the standard wedding-this-year line, the people paying for the plane ticket, hotel and per-diem expenses for the reporter would NOT be happy. the only reason someone would be sent there is to get pictures. Without any footage of the reporter chatting with the happy couple, preferably with the 'new baby,' I will remain dubious as to whether there was any interview.
As far as People talking about the birth, at this point it doesn't matter to them. Here are the possible scenarios:
1-There is a Tripp; People gets pix and a big exclusive story that hopefully generates newsstand sales.
2-There is a Tripp; People doesn't get pix/story (someone wrote something here yesterday about SP refusing to be part of the shoot and People not being happy about that) and they save the $$$.
3-There is no Tripp; People writes the story of SP's tearful confession of the fraud, or the story of something terrible that happened to the baby, and hopefully for them, THAT story generates sales.
Bidding for these pix took place a while ago. It's either a deal or its not by this time. A bid doesn't sit on the table while the celeb sets the terms and conditions for months. Baby pix deals are a strike-when-the-iron-is-hot situation, for the most part. There are much bigger stars that the celeb-gossip-reading crowd cares about, and they're pregnant (and cooperative), or getting married, or getting divorced, or going to rehab. The Tripp baby pix story, if it never happens, will NOT be a huge loss for People.
*** Palin Pregnancy Truth said...
Could Sarah or her people have started the People Magazine picture rumors? That could be an excuse to buy them more time to find "Tripp".
They could use this rumor to justify their hesitance to show a picture, claiming that they are waiting for a bidder to get the exclusive rights.***
I can confirm that People was (at least a few weeks ago) interested and bidding on pix. People always denies bidding; they denied bidding on those Angelina/Brad baby pix.
Celebs who wait for the highest bidder on baby pix (with the exception of stars on the level of Brangelina, whose cover presence generates a HUGE bump in newsstand sales) lose. For example, Ashlee Simpson and Pete Wentz don't sell magazines, tried to play hardball with pix of their new baby - and ended up just putting his picture on their website.
A baby picture story is sweet, light, happy. Who doesn't like looking at babies? And it's fun to see the nurseries. If the story turns out to be too much work and money for a magazine, they don't bother. SP didn't generate a huge sales increase for People, so she's not worth it if she starts to get ornery about this.
Audrey, don't know if this will help, will post it anyway and you can decide. I went to mccainblogette and found this.Posted on 7 Nov 2008
Excerpt from this blog.
This is the first time in the History of this blogettethat I have decided to keep the documentation for myself and my family and not to publish it on this site.
I hope everybody understands that I don't feel like sharing such an emonional night as I once did .Its not that I don't believe our readers would be sensitive to the material,it is that I don't believe some of the media would.
I thought it might be the medical report as she only gave it to them on the 3 Nov. I had a look at it and noted Piper year of birth is wrong 2000 instead of 2001.There is a FF at the bottom that dosn't match the rest of the document.
The letter never came with the doctors letterhead. dont know if its worth persuing
Great post, midnight cajun (1/17 @ 1:47AM) - only one quibble:
the "Nail in the Coffin" photo from 3/26 has no scarf either... but I don't really think that detracts from your overall scenario. As other posters have mentioned, SP was probably caught "off guard" in that photo and had meant to keep the big jacket closed for disguise purposes.
Your observations on the Gusty video are very astute, and I see what you mean about SP's weird expression near the end being indicative of the moment the still photo was taken.
I think what you've suggested all makes sense - thanks for putting a slightly different slant on things!
MIDNIGHTCAJUN, says:
"On the last day of the session, Sarah dresses in her usual black outfit, wearing her small fake belly. However, for this one day only she leaves off her trademark scarf.
"Then, late that afternoon, long after everyone else has gone, she dons a HUGE empathy belly. In the deserted halls of the legislature, she meets Gusty for the interview."
your scenario nails it!
WOW, very credible. it does confirm what has bothered us all here: THAT THERE'S SOMETHING PHONY ABOUT THE WHOLE THING!
Moseyon, the 'documentation' Megan's referring to on her McCain blogette is personal footage taken the night her father announced is defeat. She'd done a lot of personal blogging with video but didn't want to put that up because it was so emotional.
She wouldn't have anything like medical records.
You need to read the whole post to put it in context.
"There are still no pictures of Tripp. That seems beyond odd to me."
BlueTx responds: "Not odd at all to me when there are a bunch of "anonymous bloggers" just salivating at the mouth for a glimpse. "
Let me get this straight - SP posted a big 'welcome Tripp' statement on the Governor of Alaska's webpage, but won't release pictures to spite the anonymous bloggers?
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=1593
Exactly Jeanie, and even more curious when you consider that those pictures would have all but proven that Bristol wasn't the mother of Trig.
BlueTx responds: "Not odd at all to me when there are a bunch of "anonymous bloggers" just salivating at the mouth for a glimpse. "
Nothing about this story could cause me to salivate at the mouth.
There are no pics of Tripp or other "proof" of birth yet, because you can't take a picture of a baby that hasn't been born. If there is a baby at all, I think the pics will show up at the end of January or early February...when Trig's little brother or sister is finally born.
And re: Bristol's chest at the convention, she definitely looked like a nursing mom. I thought at the time that she might even have been ace bandaged just to fit in the black dress/keep from leaking through. Her chest looked like a giant sofa bolster.
RE: Piper and how the fraud is perpetrated in her presence.
Easy. Lies. Children accept what they're told when it comes from people they trust. (Bristol's sick; Mommie's having a baby.) They repress their doubts and questions, and grow up with secrets festering inside of them.
Just ask any adult who was abused as a child by someone they loved or grew up in a household of lies.
For me, the photos that truly tell the tale are:
1) SP in the open gray coat with a strange white square under her tight black top (small child pictured on right)
and
2) BP in her sweatshirt which appears to be stuffed with rags.
So-- SP pretending to be pregnant prior to Trig, BP pretending after Trig. There is still no sign of Tripp, so the logical conclusion is that BP is Trig's mom. Period.
All of the other photos are various attempts at deception some better than others. One of the ones that truly makes me sick is
that square pad she was smacking in the video. Could that have been some sort of water bottle or gel ice pack? It sounded like one.
**MODERATION REMINDER***
While we appreciate readers offering a psychological analysis of Sarah Palin, as with the DNA discussion, we believe this type of scientific speculation is left with experts.
Anyone can come on a blog and claim professional credentials but there is no way to verify this and quite frankly we are not interested in going off on that tangent anyway.
The purpose of this blog is to explore whether Sarah Palin is the mother of Trig. We prefer to limit tangential discussions that could easily throw us all off topic.
Thank you all for your cooperation and understanding in this matter.
Sarah says that she will no longer try to prove that she gave birth to Trig.
Either because she didn't, and she ran out of fake "proof" (all big-tummy pix have been released; all lies have been told), or else she is nervous about sites like this one. Or both.
Kevin and Midnight Cajun, I think both of you are on the right track (no pun intended) with your scenarios.
Someone suggested that Trig could have been delivered by C-section because his face didn't have that squished look. Good point! More proof that he didn't come from Sarah's body. She would not have been back at work 3 days after a C-section, right? No maternity leave?
Post a Comment