Could somebody point me to an explanation of how the 4/13/08 photograph came to be verified as legitimate and not some home PhotoShopper monkeying around with SP's head, some pregnant woman's body, etc.?
Has Sarah Palin ever said it was a photograph of her?
Has the reporter with the microphone and/or the cameraman said it's legitimate?
1. The photo of Gusty allegedly interviewing Palin has never been verified as legitimate. It was released on August 31st, after the controversy of Palin's not being Trig's mom swept the Internet, to an anonymous Flickr account. Neither the photographer nor the account owner (Eric95599) has ever identified themselves, answered how or why it was released on 8/31, or answered legitimate queries as to why - since there was controversy in Alaska since April concerning Trig's birth - it was not released prior to 8/31.
2. Sarah Palin has never commented on that photo. However, the McCain campaign (in conversations with Andrew Sullivan at Atlantic.com) has acknowledged the photo as one of the few in which Palin appears pregnant. I think it's fair to say they certainly implied that it is Palin and that it is legit.
3. Andrea Gusty told factcheck.org that the picture was legitimate. (According to factcheck.org, she also provided them with a higher resolution version of the photo, though factcheck.org has never released it; the version on their website is actually LOWER resolution than the one on Flickr.) She also told one of my research assistants that the photo was taken on April 13th and that is how Palin looked on that day. However, Gusty also said (to factcheck.org) she had no idea how the photo was released to the Internet because she thought she was the only one who had it and she has not answered my multiple emails asking for clarification on the photo. We have so far failed to identify the cameraman conclusively.
It should perhaps be stated here - since I do not believe I have mentioned it before - that there have been persistent rumors that another version of this photo was seen on the internet early in September in which Palin did not look this pregnant, that the photo was at that point "inconclusive." I cannot find any legitimate source for this. No one that I consider credible has ever written to me and stated that they saw the photo, told me where or when, and certainly no other version of the photo appears to be in existence. I have worked with numerous people since I began researching this topic who jumped into the issue very early on and downloaded and archived absolutely everything they found. It is only due to very alert bloggers and researchers that we have, for example, full screen shots of Mercedes Johnston's Myspace pages. If another version of the photo existed, I believe someone would have grabbed it and no one did. Because of this, I do not believe that another version of this photo was circulating early in September.
239 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 239 of 239MKaiser,
I'm thinking T-shirts would be a bad idea. We're trying to do something pretty serious here. If Audrey looks like she's trying to make a buck off of it, then her credibility is undermined. People will just say she's capitalizing on a scandal. I know Audrey, and that's not the kind of person she is.
Sorry, but that's my opinion.
Here is an account by John Zeigler of his SP interview in Wasilla (JZ is the guy who did the Hot Air video).
Note: JZ is a self-confessed Palin supporter, so take that for what it's worth.
http://tinyurl.com/8eaoss
A few interesting notes:
- Bristol answered the door, "eight days after giving birth".
- JZ said Bristol tended to Tripp in an adjacent room (but he doesn't say if he actually saw Tripp).
- SP said the "local newspaper" is still pursuing the Trig birth story. It's not clear if that's the ADN, the Frontiersman or something else.
I've been quiet for awhile now, but reading everything. I think MK's site is GREAT, and should be linked to from Audrey's main website.
Also, can you put the "Nail in Coffin" photo/explanation on the website itself? I tried to fwd to a friend/disbeliever, but discovered how awkward it was to say "go to Dec 08" find the "Nail in Coffin" bit, etc..... I thought that it would be in with the "Palin Pg photos" from that time period, but no luck.
I actually agree (!) with Craig for once-- that we probably should put together a short, "just the hits" bit that we can digg, send to Sullivan and KO and all, etc. To that end, I offer up my writing services if they can be of any use. (I know you don't know me from Adam, or Tripp, but if it would help....).
Yellowgirl
(yellowgirlnc@yahoo.com)
One way to perhaps get some attention is to nominate this blog in the Bloggie Web Blog Awards competition for 2009.
There are a lot of categories to choose from in the nomination process. Best Topical Blog might be a good choice, Best Kept Secret might be another.
Go check it out!
Morgan, oh my..I guess my "tone" got completely lost in the written word:
I was JOKING about the t-shirts, I swear! I know we are all on a serious, serious mission here and while I might try to lighten the mood occasionally with a bit of humor, rest assured I take this as seriously as possible. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
(for anyone else interested in a bit of palincentric puffery, check out the current issue of 'MAD' magazine. It's a spoof of the game Clue and has a valid undercurrent of biting commentary on SP)
Sorry again re the t-shirt comment, Morgan..it did not even cross my mind that it would come off as a serious comment.
MKaiser, TX
I watched the John Zeigler interview with SP in Wasilla. Of course, SP mentions the Trig rumour. What I can't understand is why the MSM will not ask her why she just won't put these rumours to rest by showing Trig's birth certificate or her medical records? Is this that hard to do? If these rumours bother SP so much (I'm assuming they do since she has brought it up in several post-election interviews.) then why won't she just prove that she is Trig's birth mother? My guess is that she can't but I would love for someone to just ask that question.
Why get pissed off about something you can do something about? That's my question.
If a "state of the investigation" post is created for others to link to, I'd stick with contacting sympathetic higher-profile liberal bloggers rather than trying to get Olbermann's attention. He gets most of his information from the internet anyway (specifically from sites like Daily Kos and Huffington Post). He is not the kind of talking head who is going to stick his neck out for an unknown blog unless it is legitimized (in his eyes) by being mentioned in one of his preferred blog sources.
That's why, if it were me, I'd focus on these higher-traffic liberal blogs and connect with the authors themselves via e-mail, rather than getting lost in a long thread of comments.
It's all about building a critical mass of internet buzz until it breaks out into the mainstream.
There is an audience out there that is pre-disposed to want to believe anything negative about Palin. It would therefore come down to whether these people believe that you just have a collection of speculative whiffs of smoke, or something with true substance.
FWIW, the viral video is still the most potentially impactful method.
I just checked out the Zeigler interview at http://tinyurl.com/8eaoss
It is evident that the number one issue on Palin's mind is proving to everybody that Trig is her son.
If I was Palin and Trig was my son, after attacking the media for still bringing up the issue, I would have said, "Hold on a minute." I would have walked to a file cabinet, gotten a copy of Trig's birth certificate out and pointed it at the camera and said, "You want proof that Trig is my son. Here's proof!"
She didn't do that.
While watching the Zeigler interview, I was particularly struck by how Palin compared herself as a "mama grizzly" when it came to her children.
This is one time I completely agree. It's well known that when its survival is threatened, a mama grizzly will eat her young.
Just watched the John Ziegler clip. First off, could that site be any more right wing nutty? And secondly, could Mr Z be any more salivatory towards SP?
For our consideration, though, also, once again she claims that the whole Trig thing is the fault of the reporters who do not check on the "facts"--the "facts" being SP's statement--in fact she wonders in this interview why she is not believed. Gees, you really don't know?
As far as Bristol and "Tripp", yes, they are mentioned in the introductory story, but, as someone here has pointed out, they are not to be seen (at least so far) in the interview. I find it hard to believe that if they were both there, SP wouldn't have taken a minute of her interview, or even a minute before of after this very long interview--even off camera if there is some sort of People-type baby photo agreement--to show off her new grandson to an adoring reporter who could confirm the actuality of this latest controversial baby. Surely SP knows that people are questioning Tripp's existence.
She is so friggin' clueless. Also.
"Sorry again re the t-shirt comment, Morgan..it did not even cross my mind that it would come off as a serious comment."
No worries, MKaiser. There are just quite a few people out there who would love to see Audrey's credibility undermined and turning this into some sort of commercial endeavor would certainly do it.
Why do you think she's rejected all the public offers to fund what she's doing through Paypal?
I'm sure some people mean well with their suggestions, but I think the Palinites would love nothing more than to see her go that route so they could say, "See, she's just doing this to make money."
MKeiser, earlier you stated that the bulge under Palin's shirt in that museum photo looked like a ThermaCare heat wrap. When I first looked at it that is exactly what I told Audrey. I wonder if Palin had meant to keep her jacket buttoned during the event but wanted to give the illusion of a "bump" just above where the coat closed.
Youtube videos are a good way to get a point across to ALOT of people. (Remember the turkeys?)
The Young Turks did several videos during the election cycle that were fun. I'm sure there are other producers who might be interested in this matter. Plus, there are thousands of "self-produced" videos that go viral.
It's something to think about.
Re: Ziegler interview - Bristol answered the door, "eight days after giving birth."
If that is true, Bristol is unlikely to be eight months pregnant now, though she could look four or so months if post-partum. Wouldn't the interviewer notice the difference? This suggests either Tripp exists or will never exist. Who knows.
Here's a little housekeeping to clean up and clear up some speculation:
Item #1:
The photo of Bristol-in-the-green-dress-with-a-baby-bump is from 2006. Originally I, too, thought it was from later but it isn't. Doubters' insistence that this photo was proof of Bristol being Trig's mother had to retract because, as Audrey found, there is a photo published in ADN in 2006 with every Palin family member wearing the exact same clothes and everyone looks exactly the same. It is just wishful thinking that this oft-viewed photo is proof because it has been misdated.
Captions added after the photo was taken could are have shown to be wrong. But the photo is from 2006. Period. Any other assertion has been conclusively debunked.
Item #2:
Trig's actual date of birth cannot be ascertained with 100% certainty. That's hard to dispute since no medical records have been released. We only know that Trig made his first public appearance on April 18, per the ADN story and photo. (That's assuming the infant pictured was Trig.)
If you throw out that evidence with speculation unsupported by any physical or circumstantial evidence, you might as well create whatever fiction you want. There is no logic to the assertion that the Palin hid Trig perfectly for weeks and weeks, then were caught completely off guard on April 17 when SP had to dash back to Alaska to claim giving birth and to display baby Trig for everyone to see.
What physical and circumstantial evidence we do have argues against the added deception of Trig being born much earlier than April 18. Since the inherent assumption in this proposition is that SP faked the pregnancy, she would have had to start that ruse around the time the some propose Trig was actually born. Since the Palins would have know way of knowing in advance whether hiding Trig long enough for a faked pregnancy would work, choosing that approach seems odd.
The Trig-born-earlier hypothesis has taken on new life recently in order to allow a longer window for Bristol to have given birth to Trig, become pregnant again, and given birth to Tripp when reported. Such results-oriented speculation harms the credibility of the effort. I’m more accepting of speculation that Tripp has not yet been born, since at least the evidence hasn’t been presented that he was, Bristol is still in hiding, and the motivations to commence that ruse to cover up the earlier one align.
We would all be wise to accept that Trig was born on or about April 18 because we have photographic and circumstantial evidence that this was the case. Any other theory piles assumption upon assumption, and lets naysayers label us all as crackpots.
Dangerous
Anon @ January 7, 2009 11:12 PM
You source is hardly convincing when:
1. He is part of the 9-11 tinfoil hat brigade.
2. Swoons over Palin
3. Part of the tinfoil hat brigade
4. Did not see alleged baby
I mean get real, is the baby (by now a few days old, a "1st") hidden by the mom that allegedly answered the door?
Did I mention the tinfoil hat brigade?
Re Ziegler interview:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/07/video-palin-hits-back-at-the-media/
This Ziegler interview is truly appalling in its spoonfeeding. Ziegler asks not a single follow-up question. DANG what an opportunity to just say, "Why not make Trig's birth certificate available?" But it would never enter this guy's brain; his mission is to get her to say bad things about the media. He's the only kind of media SP can tolerate: bloggers suck, mainstream sucks, but you just sitting and listening to me without questioning me--now that's the kind of media I likes!!
SP had a chance to show Tripp actually exists to a friendy interviewer no less, and either a) blew the chance, or b) there aint no baby.
As per this web site regarding fetal development.
http://www.pregnancy.org/article/your-bodys-changes-and-babys-growth-17-20-weeks
"At about 20 weeks, your uterus will be approximately at the level of your umbilicus (belly button)."
Anon @ January 7, 2009 11:04 PM
stated
"Audrey concludes (correctly, I will assume), in the discussion of this picture on her website, that the picture could have been taken no later than October 23, 2007. However, given the bare branches on the tree outside, it could not have been taken much earlier either."
http://tinyurl.com/569ezd,
So if Bristol was five months, or greater around the 1st. of November, 2007, that would put her due date right about the time Sarah announced her pregnancy.
As I posted Anon-Jan 7, 2:19
"I really don’t think Bristol ever planned to put her baby up for adoption. (could have, of course,) but the unexpected birth of a premature DS baby took the family by surprise. Surely this situation was more than a single youngster could deal with, so Sarah announced she was pregnant. She had about five weeks to pull off her little deception because the baby needed to be hospitalized and grow.
By the way- Teen age girls do have DS babies. Our family knows first hand.
In regard to the wild ride story,
MC @ January 1, 2009 1:28 PM has a great post. He said in part “But time was running out on her to realistically present Trig to the world as “newborn.” So she concocted this silly story, never realizing it would make her look bad and attract attention exactly where she didn’t want it. The lady is, after all, not that bright.”
Also, too, if Trig was indeed premature, and we dont know that, that would put his birth in Feb.
Philosopher Jay says, "It is evident that the number one issue on Palin's mind is proving to everybody that Trig is her son."
As you say, if so, why not just prove it and forget about it? If she's not going to do that, whether because she doesn't want to or because she can't, why not shut up about it? She's too amateur to realize that her bringing it up keeps it in the minds of people other than us.
Me thinks she doth protest too much (or however the bard said it).
It seems like Sarah is trying to prove whose child he isn't, rather than if he is hers.
Ding.
There goes irrationality raising its ugly head in our air space.
Sorry Sarah. We can see common sense from our houses, also, too.
Whew. John Ziegler's interview ... hmmmmm, one would think that if SP were so concerned about the rumors that that interview would be the ideal place to show off her new grandson. But she chose not to.
John Ziegler's NOT some impartial "journalist". Also from his website: "On November 4th, 2008 millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama's limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States. For many of these Americans, the explanation was rather simple... the news media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job." That drivel sounds like it was taken directly from Faux News. Jeez, where's Katie Couric when you need her?
Believe me, if there were a baby Tripp, the pics would be ALL OVER.
More BS from Palin ... she spews it like Vesuvius spewed lava.
Zeigler is a right wing nut case. I first heard of him shortly after the election. See
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/interview-with-john-ziegler-on-zogby.html
for a wonderful interview that he signs off with an expletive (the guy who runs 538.com had dared to question the legitimacy of a "poll" Ziegler ran which put Obama supporters in a bad light).
Anyway, what is truly remarkable is how SP is trying to prove so much but yet fails so miserably. I find it remarkable that although Bristol answered the door and tended to Tripp in the next room, he does not mention actually seeing the baby. (and surely he would have since it is quite clear he is aware of all the details of the controversy) When I had my daughter all I wanted to do was show her off - even from my hospital bed! (And it didn't have to be on camera-I would have taken his word for it that he saw the baby)
And note that it was not a short interview either- Ziegler brags that "Our interview started early and ended late". Even assuming it was early morning, Bristol doesn't come out with the baby at all in all that time? Even Trig was up!
Smoke and mirrors.
We are getting to her. Let's keep it up. But please, no "viral" video as Craig- or Todd- or whoever he really is- has suggested. Seems from Craig's posts our best bet is a private investigator.
Audrey, you rock.
Mom of One, Esq.
I think my post didn't get through so I am trying again:-|
Hello!
You know, yesterday I did have a " PS" at the end of one of my posts. That "PS" was about why some people still insist a Paypal button on this blog. Because I remember Audrey said in the past that she wouldn't do that. In fact I believed some of those who were asking for a Paypal button, were indeed trying to undermine Audrey's credibility. I know some meant sincerely but some didn't.
Anyway, I did delete that "PS" part of my post before submitting, because I wouldn't like to piss off some people:-|. Today when I read Audrey's blog entry " Thanks but No Thanks", I knew I was right about my premonition. Kudos to Audrey! How fortunate your family, friends and employer are, Audrey. You're one of the rare people on this planet.
Now, I read what Mr. Ziegler wrote about his interview with Sarah Palin. I did not watch the interview, but just read his comments. This is odd: "Bristol answered the door politely". Gosh, at least we know she is alive and lives at home. Obviously, it was the housekeeper's day off. While she answered the door politely, Piper or Willow was taking care of Tripp. Then he says "Bristol cared for her newborn Tripp in a nearby bedroom". How do you know that, Mr. Ziegler? Did you hear baby crying?
Don't you think this is bizarre? When both Bristol and Sarah Palin claimed Tripp is so precious and they cannot think a life without him, they couldn't let Mr. Ziegler to have a photo of this newborn baby??? I mean it's not like Sarah Palin or Todd Palin are camera shy. So, why not let the world to see this newborn baby(if any)?
Sarah and Todd Palin are definitely reading this blog and other blogs. They know that not only Trig's birth is a big mystery but also now this Tripp's birth is becoming a mystery. So, why didn't they let Mr. Ziegler and his crew to take a photo or include Tripp in that video? Perhaps Mr. Ziegler forgot his check book at home?:-| Seriously, I do not understand why Tripp was not in that video or at least a family photo including the newborn(if any).
And Sarah Palin says for Keith Olbermann " THAT guy is EVIL!".. OMG, well in that case, I can only say " It takes one to know one".. Sorry for the sarcasm.
Why is Keith Olbermann Evil, Mrs. Palin? Because he thinks you are a fraud? Frankly, Mrs. Palin, you didn't show the world otherwise. We are all waiting for you to prove us wrong.
Here is a different account /more info on the interview. SP surely has some kind of Bonaparte-complex! Does she even KNOW what reality is??? [shaking my head]
http://tinyurl.com/8qywdw
Back on the first page of this topic (@ Jan 7, 2009 11:20 PM) Max said...
KaJo (@ Jan 7, 2009 7:26 PM) - I just read the article you linked. It mentions that (for legal liability reasons) neither pregnancy suit can be sold to the general public, only to hospitals and educational centers. Maybe a governor could arrange to borrow an empathy belly from her local childbirth center, but it seems like a silly risk to take. People at the center would remember that she borrowed a suit, and they probably wouldn't let her keep it more than a few days."
No problemo -- if I were a wily determined Governor, I'd ask my dear friend Cathy Baldwin-Johnson to get one for me.... :)
Ok, you finally have me believing after I foudn this photo of a supposedly-6-mo-pregnant SP on the day of Alaska's 2008 Presidential primary (2/5/08.) That woman is not 6 mos. pg with her fifth child, even if she has abs of titanium.
http://www.adn.com/politics/v-gallery/story/339576.html?/politics/v-enlarge/story/339576-a339575-t3.html
Re purchasing of Empathy Belly. You can buy as in individual from various sites (google it and you'll find lots, including a reseller on Amazon). And, at least some Planned Parenthood organizations rent them. So, no third-party would be needed to obtain an empathy belly.
Wilemore posted this in flickr:
http://tinyurl.com/7tathk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33163903@N05/3156170297/
The date is 9-14-08 and it appears Piper and Bristol are wearing the same clothes as this picture:
http://tinyurl.com/5ddu7q
http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_Med.jpg
Too early for Bristol to show if Trig was born in April, but not if he was born in February like some have speculated.
What's up with SP always dragging Piper around? I thought Piper is supposed to be in school? She was complaining after the campaign that it was so hard to get back into the school habit - having missed so much school work...
Responding to Palin Pregnancy Truth, the photo inside the governor's mansion was from September 2007, not 2008. I'm sure you knew that; just trying to not get the dates of photos more mixed up.
Thanks to anonymous. You are right about the 2007 and I apologize for furthering the confusion! This is why I shouldn't post without sleeping!
Anonymous @7:55 said, "What's up with SP always dragging Piper around? I thought Piper is supposed to be in school? She was complaining after the campaign that it was so hard to get back into the school habit - having missed so much school work..."
Just checked Wasilla schools' calendar, to see if Alaska does a longer winter break than down here. Nope. School restarted 1/5.
LIKELY ANSWER TO THREE AMIGOS PUZZLE
[reposting from earlier thread since relevant]
OK, fellow truth seekers, here is the answer: it's a composited photo with Palin and McAllister added to the original, which had Carpenter standing alone in the hallway.
Here's how you reach that conclusion. Look at the Three Amigos pic and ignore Palin and McAllister. What do you see? You see a photo in which the sharpest focus is near the center: notice that the door frame of office 206 is clearly in sharper focus than the door frame on the far left of the photo; also note that the softness of focus of that far left door frame is matched by the softness of focus of Carpenter (the tall dude). Thus, the original hallway picture was taken (sans SP and her press hack) with the camera probably set to autofocus and the focal point being the close edge of the frame of that middle door. (The S9000 can do auto-focus with either a center-weighted or "multi" setting - but it does not have an auto face-recognition focus mode as many newer cameras do).
So how do we know Palin and McAllister were added to that original pic? They are in sharper focus than anything else. But wait! That can't be. You just can't go from greater sharpness (of SP and McA) to less sharpness (Carpenter and the near door frame) and then back to greater sharpness (the middle door frame). It violates the rules of optics: the very sharpest point is the dead-center focal point, and apparent sharpness diminishes both in front of and behind that point, until you are out of focus. (Technically, nothing in the pic actually seems out of focus - that's an optically and mathematically determined level of fuzziness based on something called the "circle of confusion." But within your given depth of field you can have things at greater and lesser levels of sharpness.)
So there you go. I feel pretty confident in my analysis, but I'd love to hear if others agree. (BTW, I teach digital photography at a university.)
Brad
Brad, can noise in photos be from the compression of an image and not from photoshopping? Can wide-angle lenses can cause distortions like mis-alignment and multiple vanishing points?
I hope you posted your 3Amigos hypothesis in the photo thread as well as here.
I just read the editor's blog from ADN - my take is that no one has the right to insist that Gov. Palin give any proof of Trig's biological mother. Hypothetically, if Trig were adopted, she and her husband would have the right to keep that information private from him, not wanting him to hear about it by others.
I guess the whole issue with this is SP and accountability. If SP indeed hid a pregnancy, or decided to fake one, then the issue here is character. Officials need to show good judgment, character to their constituents. If they cannot feel comfortable with personal family events being exposed to the public, that is their choice. But to distort, or fake any events scares the public. Constituents need to know that their leader can lead through thick and thin, even when their own personal life is unraveling. If a family crisis is too much to handle, then that leader needs to either step down and give that family member all the attention deserved, or that leader needs to be honest and open and take the crisis and set an example by how she /he handles it, especially when "family values" is the theme of that leader's campaign.
My experience in life is that if anyone is hiding something that is unlawful, or lying because it serves political ambitions, it will eventually be exposed. Only SP knows in her heart whether she's guilty of manipulating her public for ambitious gain or not.
I hope she can wake up every morning and look at herself in the mirrow with a clear conscience.
Hi B,
Compression (which all jpeg photos undergo) can cause unwanted artifacts, but not (to my knowledge) the uniform snowy specks often called noise. Noise generally comes from using fast film (such as ASA 1600) or the digital equivalent, which is bumping up the ISO level, especially on a consumer-level digital camera, such as the Fuji S9000. The two "big belly" pics were shot at ISO 400, as I recall, which would likely introduce some noise on a camera like that one.
A wide-to-long lens (10.7x) on a camera like the S9000 could also cause either pincushion or barrel distortion when used at its extremes (widest or longest settings) which could cause misalignment; but I don't see how it could result in extra vanishing points.
Brad
wow, Brad, that was a great explanation of the focus issues with the 3 amigos! I don't know very much about photoshop or even photography, but I am learning a lot! and thanks to B., KaJo, and Diane and the many anonymouses for lots of great discussion.
also, Philosopher Jay sure has a way with words. Yes, it is the number one issue on her mind!--mary g.
I bet if you could prove there is no Tripp - everyone would finally believe you (and the rest of us!)
Is there any proof that Tripp was actually born - to Bristol?
Post a Comment