Monday, January 5, 2009

Photo Discussion Thread

Much about this story has inevitably slowed down. Trig Palin is now more than eight months old and the birth of Bristol Palin's child was announced a week ago (with the birth itself allegedly occurring ten days ago.) This is, in most standard ways, not an "on-going" news story, though of course we are still trying to obtain some (any!) independent verification that Tripp Palin was actuallly born. Because of that, it's just not possible to post new information every day.

There remains a high level of ongoing interest, however, in the two famous photographs which show Gov. Sarah Palin looking expectant, allegedly taken on 4/13 and released on 8/31. So much so that at times analysis of these photos is overwhelming comments on other threads, and people are continuing to post photo commentary to newer threads that have nothing to do with the photos. I have received some complaints that the photo analysis is just to technical for a lot of the readers. They are not disputing it, mind you, but some readers just don't grasp it and don't want to. They feel when something conclusive comes in, I'll explain it to everyone... and that's where they want to leave it.

So... I've started this new thread here. Obviously, if I make any new posts specifically on the photos, people can comment on that thread, but until I do, we are asking all readers to post any comments releated to the 4/13 photos to this thread. I'll put a link to this thread in the side bar, so it will easy to get back to. I am considering opening a second blog... just for analysis and discussion of photos, since interest seems so high, but that is a few days off.

Due to the many many interesting comments that have come in on the photos I am having further expert analysis done, looking at, among other things, the vanishing point issues as well as the issues of sizes of the people relative to one another. I am hopeful that some additional information will come to light. I'll keep everyone posted.

A

112 comments:

Anonymous said...

keep rocking it Audrey.
Thank you!

Anonymous said...

I think the photo discussion is a waste of time. What I find frustrating is that 10+ days after the birth, there isn't any independent evidence to prove that "Tripp" was born, or any evidence that Bristol really was pregnant for the last 9 months of 2008.

Anonymous said...

Please have the expert look at the standard in photography forensics, shadows. I'm very suspicious of the shadows on the faces of the 3 amigos. thanks.

sandra in oregon

Gail Zawacki said...

Dear Audrey,

Thank you so much for your persistence. I felt the photo discussion was of dubious merit until I saw the version with 2 vanishing points. Now that interests me! Can't wait for some expert to weigh in. And also for some facts to emerge (medical records, eyewitness accounts) regarding the two pregnancies.

Gail in NJ

Anonymous said...

HELLO!!!!
ALASKA!!!!!!

Maybe "al ask ha" to share a picture or two of Alaska's grand kid.

Does Wasilla have internet...or phones?

Can anyone there provide any insight into this?

This is more than bizarre....

Anonymous said...

The notion that the photos in question are proof of anything important is specious. All they show is that SP looked pregnant on that day, April 13, 2008, by all accounts. I think nearly all of us concede that SP 'looked' pregnant late in her purported term.

A clear picture dated in the time frame could prove conclusively that she wasn't pregnant. That is why Audrey and others have focused on the April 13 pictures since there are inconsistencies, but I've felt the most they could show was that the fact of her pregnancy was inconclusive. That was true even if the pictures had zero anomalies and were published at the time they were taken.

Photos I'd like to see are ones from the February 15, 2008 AMA luncheon in Fairbanks where there were reports that SP attended along with all three of her daughters. We know the family was in Fairbanks then, as there is video of them meeting Todd at the end of the Iron Dog race, also in Fairbanks. (That video is inconclusive as everyone was wearing winter coats consistent with the weather.)

But the AMA luncheon was inside. If there are pictures of the Palins -- and their must have been some -- indoors on that day, whoever appears to be either hiding a six-month pregnancy or looks far too chunky than normal is pregnant.

I'd also like to point out that the fact that the Palin girls attended that luncheon all but rules out a full-term birth of Trig much sooner than mid-April. I can't believe that one of the Palin daughters visibly pregnant would be voluntarily attending a luncheon in that condition that they were trying to hide.

There must have been 100 people or more on that day. Someone saw something and maybe took pictures. I think that's what we should investigate next.

Dangerous

wayofpeace said...

i just saw the RADAR picture of DEMI
MOORE next to SP at the same stage of pregnancy: not hard evidence BUT it's a provocative tableaux!

i wonder if side-by-side pictures like the RADAR one--SP at 6 months compared to equivalent women would reignite suspicion and thus a buzz.

NJESQ said...

Audrey,

Thank you for your persistence. It is so gratifying to know that there is someone such as you working to document these frauds perpetuated by Sarah Palin. I have no ax to grind as to her per se, but her candidacy seemed to "jump the shark," so to speak, in its obvious mendacity. The public cannot simply accept obvious lies, or else bigger lies, such as the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq can continue to be foisted on the public without consequence or criticism.

Those who have criticized the technical analyis of the two "pregnancy" photos should reconsider their criticisms; confirmation of altered photos put into the public eye by Sarah Palin would be the smoking guns.

The MSM should have its feet put to the fire for not publicizing this story in the same way that the CBS/Dan Rather fiasco regarding the fraudulent records relating to George W. Bush was publicized.

In this regard, I am dismayed that no further work has been done, to my knowledge, regarding the possibly altered/forged letter from Dr. Johnson regarding Sarah Palin's "medical records." Has anyone done any work on that issue, or has anyone seen any further analysis?

Fran said...

I hope you find a different expert to look at the photos rather then the last one you used. I thought the report given to you was lacking in details about what exactly was done. I would hope the report would provide enough details that other people could verify the results by performing the exact same set of operations. It is not enough to include the results that indicated possible or likely editing of the image. It is equally importent to understand the setting used to rule out photo editing.

I also hope before you spend any more of your money on this you get someone willing to publicly take credit for their work. I am firmly in the camp that believes that Palin did not give birth to Trig and that those photos are likely doctored, but I was not impressed by the "expert" who would not come forward because their website include personal phone numbers. I think regarding reporters making inquires, you have it backward. You probably need to do a press release and send the information directly to news organizations backed up by a professional who is willing to stand by their work.

penny in paradise said...

Now, this is in the correct thread!

The youtube video that littl'me referred to in the latter posts on the last thread, also is taped in "THE HALLWAY!" look at :43 and you can see the Speaker of the House plaque and the whiteboard. Is this helpful photoslueths?

Morgan said...

WayofPeace, I just loved the Radar comparison of Demi Moore and Sarah Palin at similar stages of "pregnancy."

Sarah has long maintained that she didn't show because of "tight abs." I'd argue that Demi Moore's abs were much tighter during her first pregnancy that Sarah Palin's were during her FIFTH!

I don't know how Palin can tell that kind of lie with a straight face. Oh, and to other posters: Please don't bother coming on here to tell me that you had twelve kids and didn't show with any of them because I won't believe you either.

Ohio mom said...

Audrey, thanks for this site and the open forum on the many suspicious statements, pictures and events circa Gov Palin.

I think we haven't seen pictures yet of Tripp because the family is negotiating for the highest dollar contract, even though it seems to be against Alaska law for the family to profit. As we have seen, however, they haven't made a law that Sarah won't break if it's in her best interest.

Also, Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson's main focus on child abuse may still hold the key to the mystery of Trig. I can see that the good doctor may have okayed that strange medical statement if she thought she were protecting an abused child.

Audrey, have you ever tried to contact Anne Kilkenny, who wrote the highly critical essay about Palin yet stated that Sarah did give birth to Trig? I read that Ms Kilkenny does answer her emails. Perhaps she would tell you why she seemed so certain that Sarah is the natural mother of Trig. Or maybe she's changed her mind. Or maybe Sarah has figured out a way to get to her and she's now afraid to speak.

I know if I lived in Alaska, I would have to be independently wealthy and very secure before I would challenge Sarah.

Ohio mom

ocean said...

Demi Moore posed for the Vanity Fair cover during her second pregnancy at the age of 28.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Audrey, this was getting frustrating and off topic with extremely long posts. Some people posting 10 or more times on the same subject in the same topic. It's best I think, to try and gather all ones thoughts, think them through and not have to continually add on.
I know everyone is just trying to contribute, but if you have multiple posts that are basically redundant with only a new "twist" here and there, you lose peoples interest. (and probably their readership)
May I also suggest a separate blog to argue the Down Syndome issue/ satistics. There are so many posts on DS on each topic steam let's consolidate this issue.
One good thing that keeps this a news item, is that there are more and more newbies along with naysayers. Something is gotta give sometime. Happy New Year to all!

Anonymous said...

Couldn't this all be solved in a short matter of time by sending a private investigator to Alaska?
There is no way that blogging every day is going to bring any truth to light.
If you want the truth, you're going to have to go there and dig for it.
I, for one, would be willing to pony up some money to donate for a fund to pay a PI.
How about you all?

Anonymous said...

"
I'd also like to point out that the fact that the Palin girls attended that luncheon all but rules out a full-term birth of Trig much sooner than mid-April."

Gosh, Dangerous, you're right. The best way I could make sense of this whole thing was to decide that Trig had been born a month or two earlier than stated, and the wild ride was an attention-getting decoy (over done because she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer) to make it look like he was just born.
But if the daughters were at that a luncheon on Feb 15, that is not a 6-month pregnancy, but a 7-month one. And I do not believe any of them could hide that. If we got conclusive evidence that all three were there, and that they took off heavy coats/sweaters and spent normal time there, then I would have to say I doubt that any of the three of them could be the mother.

Were all three really there, inside and eating at the table, walking around?

Lucy

Morgan said...

Ocean said, "Demi Moore posed for the Vanity Fair cover during her second pregnancy at the age of 28."

Oh, my bad. It was Demi's second pregnancy, which explains why she was showing and Sarah with her fifth pregnant was not. Right.....

;-)

Anonymous said...

Is there anybody in Juneau reading this blog who can go to the actual office where the 4/13/08 photograph was taken and take another photo from the same place whoever took this photo was standing?

The cardboard boxes on the floor against the wall behind the two women are something I haven't seen discussed in these threads. The box farthest away from the camera looks as if it's against a wall on a different plane than the wall immediately to the right of the cameraman in the photo.

I'd love to see some close up photographs of the carpeting underneath the reporter's legs. I'd also like to see a photograph of the entire wall to the right of the cameraman, both sides of the doorway, to see how the framed pictures actually appear on the wall.

Anonymous said...

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?

Caroline said...

http://articles.directorym.com/
GED_Alaska-r606-Alaska.html

'The GED or General Educational Development test is a test that measures one's academic knowledge and is administered to those seeking to obtain what is commonly referred to as a high school equivalency diploma. For those unable or unwilling to finish high school for various reasons, the GED is a way for them to either continue their education or to find employment, as most jobs aren't open to those without a high school diploma or the equivalent. In addition, in order to attend most trade schools or community colleges in Alaska, or even to enlist in the military, a high school diploma or GED is required.'

Both Bristol and Levi left school early, making them dropouts. Why they dropped out is their business, but it is unusual to drop out of grade 12 in March unless you are failing with no hope of passing. Bristol being about 2 months pregnant with Tripp is no reason.

It had been said that Bristol left school early because she already had enough credits to graduate. Obviously this was not true.

Has Sarah been questioned about this? This latest GED revelation came from her, after all.

BTW, much has been said of Track being a high-school drop out. Wrong. He graduated.

Anonymous said...

Dear Dangerous,

About the February 15, 2008 AMA luncheon in Fairbanks and it "all but ruling out a full-term birth of Trig much sooner than mid-April":

There's one theory that Trig was born February 7th or 8th because there's no other record of SP's doctor delivering ANY babies at Mat-Su hospital except at 5:30 a.m. on 2/7/08, and the following day Bristol got into a car accident outside of the satellite health care office (strip mall) when she was supposed to be at home in isolation due to mononucleosis.

If it's true that Bristol delivered Trig and it was on 2/7 or 2/8, I might expect to see her at the AMA luncheon as a way to dispel pregnancy rumors. Why would you bring your daughter who has been out of school for 2 months with a highly contagious case of mononucleosis to a gathering of physicians if not for them to witness something else you think is more important, i.e., "she's not pregnant"?

If there were simple explanations supporting their version, I suspect the Palins would have come out with them. Instead, almost weekly some new head-scratching item comes to light.

RW said...

Audrey, I surely hope you have somene look at this pic....from 3-16-08.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33163903@N05/3093331245/in/set-72157610933010448/

At one time you/someone enhanced by lightening the belly pad she once wore.
Can someone do the same to this 3-16 pic?

I can see the fat padding she is wearing, it shows up on her shoulder and beneath her armpit and runs down thru her butt.

It can be seen with the eye, if it is enhanced it will show more explicitly.

btw...photo thread discussion good idea!!!

Next Chapter said...

Audrey,

You have done such a fantastic job with all of this. My personal thoughts have been that if any pictures should be examined, it should be the one on March 26,08 to prove that that one was NOT photoshopped. That could rule out the naysayers trying to say that the people investigating the story are making up evidence.

A thought that I had was to use voice analysis on her recount of the wild ride where there is audio of the interview she did on ADN. There is even a free download to try it that I might still do. I held up on in because of the reports that it is not considered to be completely reliable. However, it is used in some police depts and insurance companies. It might give a little more insight.

A suggestion I would make, Audrey, is to put up method to allow people to donate to help with some of the cost that you are incuring. You have already put in so much time, energy and dilegence, that it hardly seems fair to have to carry all of the cost on top of it. I personally would happily donate some money towards this.

I hope you will consider it.

Thanks again for all you do!

Anonymous said...

I love the idea of a new "open thread" post here maybe two or three times a week to keep the comments manageable.

Until I see photographic evidence of Bristol "unpregnant" she didn't give birth. I get the uneasy feeling that the family will hold out until March when Tripp is really born. That is when the pics will show up in People magazine I guess. I find it hard to believe that Bristol is not going to go out with any friends or be seen in public between now and March but I guess anything is possible.

Anonymous said...

wayofpeace said:i wonder if side-by-side pictures like the RADAR one--SP at 6 months compared to equivalent women would reignite suspicion and thus a buzz.

I don't think so, because all women carry differently depending on their size, the size of their baby, and the way the baby is lying.

obgyn nurse said...

"Oh, and to other posters: Please don't bother coming on here to tell me that you had twelve kids and didn't show with any of them because I won't believe you either."

How is this kind of comment helpful at all? You know all, and everyone else are liars if they don't fall into your professional opinion of what the perfect pregnant woman looks like.Its not your way or the highway here and everyones experiences certainly are helpful.Its when someone says 'this is the only way a pregnant woman should look, this big, this weight, etc. that I know they haven't seen too many pregnant women, and are just being hardheaded.

wayofpeace said...

i SECOND NEXTCHAPTER's suggestion that AUDREY set up an online system for those of us who want to contribute $ to the cause.

i do hate PAYPAL, though.

Anonymous said...

Something that popped into my mind when reading Dangerous' post. Put your thinking caps on. Back when all the expenses for toting everyone around, there was an event where Sarah had told someone (the invitor) that she would like to bring Bristol, Willow and Piper. On the expense report for that event, only 2 of them are listed. I can't remember what that was. And it was commented that by the person reporting this that there wasn't an explanation for this. I am searching for it. If anyone knows what I am referring to, help me out. Thanks
DMS

Anonymous said...

BTW,
The reason that lack of expensing all 3 girls stuck in mind was that when reading all the things she charged the state for, she took advantage of everything, why not that. It just stuck with me for some reason. Thanks for your help.
DMS

Morgan said...

Well, "OBGyn Nurse" (ahem...)

The comment was meant as tongue-in-cheek.

And while we women here may not know all, we know enough to understand that a flat stomach just a month before a woman is due and the distinct outline of a pad/pillow underneath a "pregnant" woman's shirt is certainly grounds for speculation.

You're quite right. My comments aren't helpful. To Sarah? ;-)

So sorry to disappoint....

Anonymous said...

I'm just tossing thoughts out that I haven't seen mentioned by anyone, but are really "rules of thumb" about pregnancies and birth that anyone who has been pregnant or conscious of pregnancy knows.

I have yet to hear anyone, on a blog or one of SP's friends or co-workers or colleagues at any of the gatherings she was at when she was pregnant say that they felt her belly.

When you are pregnant, total strangers want to feel the baby. Has anybody heard of someone asking SP if they could touch her abdomen and how she responded?

SP has scrubbed the gov website, but after she announced on 3/5/08 that she was pregnant, it doesn't look like she was in public all that much, except at scripted, tightly managed political gatherings. Surely someone would have reached out to touch a belly that looked like the 4/13/08 one.

Mary G. said...

Dangerous and others:
I have wondered about that mysterious Feb. 15 luncheon event, for which Palin submitted "amended" reimbursement forms indicating not only attendance at a lunch, but also reading at an elementary school--yet no photos or reports exist of Palin and her daughters doing these things. An organizer claimed Palin showed up with the girls, but I have always felt that this "after the fact" evidence of Palin's story was to help maintain the sham that Palin had Alaskans pay for her and her daughters to be in Fairbanks to meet Todd at the finish line of the IronDog Race. Just like her other justifications for billing Alaskans for her kids' travel, hotels, and meals: "They cut the ribbon at the Wal-god store opening"; "They sampled ice cream at the Ice Fest" etc. Really crucial to Alaskan governance.

luna1580 said...

to the person saying the first digital photo analyst did a poor job: perhaps someone else could do slightly better. BUT the naked truth remains that the photos now available from the original flickr account are not high enough resolution to be very conclusive. period.

i realize many people are not experts in the area of digital photos, and that's okay, but PLEASE understand that no one can analyze data that isn't there! there is no magic method to reveal pixels not found in the image file, and what IS there can only be enhanced so much.

it's like you were looking at a design made of little circles, squares, and triangles in different colors. if for some reason you took an image of this design with a technology that recored the colors -but converted ALL the little shapes to circles- it would be impossible to look at the recorded, all circle, image and say which little colored point was really a square in the original design because the data has been LOST.

it is unfortunate that only these low-res images are now available, but that's the way it is. what they are able to tell us will always be limited, no matter who analyzes them.

if it is true that andrea gusty provided factcheck.org with the higher resolution files (and they chose not to post them to make it easier for people with slow internet connections to load the factcheck story) perhaps factcheck could be petitioned to make the higher-res versions available to those who want to see them.

so if you really care about these pics contact factcheck about it, or join audrey in contacting andrea gusty directly (but politely and reasonably).

the low-res versions now available are a dead end, sorry to say.

luna

luna1580 said...

so i just went to factcheck, and they said the larger version of the "with belly" pic (that can be accessed by clicking on the smaller one in the story) is the original that gusty sent them. this gem is listed as an update at the bottom of the story.

so i guess that's all they have.

luna

wayofpeace said...

ANON: "I don't think so, because all women carry differently depending on their size, the size of their baby, and the way the baby is lying."

actually we have a good picture that shows how SP look pregnant. this was her first (TRACK) and she was huge!!!

anyway, we do have something to compare.

obgyn nurse said...

Well, "OBGyn Nurse" (ahem...)

No need to get your knickers in a bunch, yes, 9 years in April :)...

Pregnant women can be different sizes.I've seen women with huge bellies give birth to 6 lbs babies, and women you would swear only had a 6 lber in there have an 8+ lber.
Older women seem to keep themselves in better shape, perhaps because they are better situated in life and can afford to eat healthier and go to a gym.I have yet to see one go crazy and gain 40 lbs like some of the young Moms do.
I seriously think if SP were using a fake belly, she wouldn't be wearing skin tight shirts like she's pictured in. She would have worn looser shirts to hide any lines, etc.She would have gone out of her way to make a pad hard to detect. Her chest actually looks weirder to me, a little flattened or bound down, but why would she try to flatten her chest? I think its an exercise type bra.Since she likes to run, she may wear one often.

Anonymous said...

Upstream, someone asked if anyone ever felt SP's belly. That question is related to something that has bothered me from the very beginning. Didn't SP say that she kept the pregnancy from her own children until she was quite far along? How could she unless she had ZERO physical contact with her children? No hugs or snuggling the youngest on the sofa watching TV, else the solid, firm belly would be felt. What a sad, sterile cacoon she created in my mind's eye with that one detail.

Anonymous said...

The photos on the flicker account previously given...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33163903@N05/3093331245/in/set-72157610933010448/

dated March 13 & 16, I think...the exact same outfit...one side view and one front view; just like the April 13 photos...strange to have both views, huh?

Put sacks over the heads and I would swear they were not the same person. There seems to be about a 15 pound difference between those two photos.

Thanks again, Audrey. Please keep investigating and probing, and I greatly appreciate everyone's efforts to bring everything into the light.

And for those who care, Levi quit his job today per ADN.

Anonymous said...

Audrey, I'm still wondering about eye witness accounts within weeks of the birth. Was SP in Juneau or in someone else's company during that time? There ought to be some people in government who can comment on this. She didn't go into hiding like her daughter, did she?

palin pregnancy truth said...

Doesn't help too much but I found this:

http://tinyurl.com/9eq2l8

Anonymous said...

Face it, everyone- if Palin gave birth to Trig she would have proved it right off the bat. There wouldn't have been hundreds of bits of information that just don't add up. We all know this is a con game and we are all trying to figure it out. The one thing we do know- someone other than Palin is the mother of Trig.

Look at the 2 photos everyone is picking apart. Look at them with your bare eyes. They just don't look right! Believe your eyes, folks!

Picture #1 Palin staring out somewhere disconnected with goofy grin- this is not what you would see in a real picture, she is in a totally different realm, not in touch with the scene she is supposedly in.
Picture #2 The arm of the tan suit touching Palin- the upper fold in the sleeve doesn't have a natural roundness and the sleeve is completely straight. Cut and paste.

Just these 2 things seen with the bare eye indicate photos fooled around with. They are SO obvious.

Also, no need to write that SP faked to "protect Bristol". SP is all about Sarah. Or to write that Trapp has been born December 27 because we don't know that.

The dates SP picks are to throw people off her trail.

I don't know how many babies we are dealing with here. The pictures of Trig from the first to the Christmas card picture look really different.

These baby scams are the biggest deal in SP's life. Digging one hole after the next.....

-Ivycorboar

palin pregnancy truth said...

More video I haven't seen:

http://tinyurl.com/8f3d63

Fran said...

To: luna1580 - I did not say the "expert" did a poor job, I said they did a poor job documenting what they did. In particuliar they did not detail how the tests they ran showed no editing on the second photo. There is not enough information present in the report to determine if they did a great job, but are lazy about documenting what they do or did not do a great job. At the time Audrey posted, I asked if they was the entire report from the "expert". I am surprised that the "expert" did not provide a standard sheet explaining what each of the tests meant and how they are performed. I don't know what Audrey agree to pay for, but I don't happen to think what she got was all that professional. I don't know much about how to analyze a photo, but I make my living analyzing systems. I don't merely provide a client with a list of conclusions. I first explain in great detail my methology and the process I used to reach those conclusions. I would expect somebody who conducted analyse in any other field to provide an equally rigorous explaination. Without that information you are left to take the conclusions on faith.

Anonymous said...

@Anon at January 5, 2009 6:08 PM

Hello!

You can read it all here:
http://tinyurl.com/7jzdda
"In January, the governor, Willow and Piper showed up at the Alaska Symphony of Seafood Buffet, an Anchorage gala to announce winners of an earlier seafood competition."

Dangerous, you're right. It's just not possible for Bristol to attend a lunch, visibly pregnant on Feb 15, 2008. Please also remember that Bristol travelled to Newyork together with Sarah Palin in Oct 2007, for a women's leadership conference.

In any case I do not believe Bristol is the biological mother of Trig. However, I believe Trig was born much earlier than Apr 18, 2008(could be around that time when Sarah Palin announced her "pregnancy" which many believe was fake.

From the beginning, I always thought those captions on Mercedes Johnston's Myspace page were odd. Only someone who is very closely related to the baby, would write such captions, with so much affection. I still believe strongly that Sherry Johnston is the biological mother of Trig(yes I agree with you, Kay). Track is the father, most probably, hence the cover up story.

Now, I read the news about Sherry Johnston in the court yesterday. I was not aware that she is in the middle of divorce. She says she and her busband were separated in May-June 2008. Don't you find this odd? She says she is disabled and her soon to be ex-husband pays the mortage for her home.

By the way, Levi Jonhston quit his job, thanks to Sarah Palin who can't stop speaking. Of course, now she has another Palin Gate.

As far as the photos, the best evidence is( I think) the fact that Sarah Palin's photos that kind of show her "pregnant" are not among hundreds of photos on the Alaska Governor website. Don't you think this is the best evidence?

To the nurse who made a comment about pregnant women, I have one thing to say. She couldn't have seen many pregnant women in her life. Every pregnant woman around 7-8 months will show her pregnancy. Doesn't matter how thin or fit the woman is. The reason why Sarah Palin did not show, because she was simply not pregnant. Simple logic:-|

Anita said...

I, too, like the idea of threads broken down into subjects. My thought is that, if Audrey's site is the one left standing and carrying the 'burden' of keeping this story alive, it has to have easy enough access for new readers that may make their way here.

It's kinda hard right now to send the link to the website and/or blog and say, "Read this! I'm sure you'll find it amazing and want to follow up with your own research!", when every post has 100-300+ comments. Many times Audrey starts the gears in our tired little brains turning with the great blog posts, and the discussion thread has a multitude of good detail - but it's just too haphazard for a 'real' journalist to visit and get caught up on the story.

Audrey, I'm sure there are others besides myself that would be most willing to help you with moderating, sorting, etc. and I KNOW that your loyal readers would feel better being able to contribute some money to the cause ... even if the regular commenters gave $5/each, it would be bound to help out!

Let us do what is possible to help, so that you and your family don't burn out!

Patrick said...

I would like to urge everybody to write to factcheck and mention the discrepancies in the two pregnancy pictures of Erik99559. I contacted them several days ago and gave them a detailed explanation, including the background story, and NEVER received a reply, which was extremely disappointing. I don't believe that factcheck has taken up this story again. I also don't believe that factcheck got in touch with Andrea Gusty for more clarification. We need to make it clear to them that this is a serious issue and that it has to be followed up. You can contact factcheck via email under:

editor(at)factcheck.org

Here are the links from factcheck again in which those pictures were discussed:

Article:

http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/09/16/forget-it-jake/

Video:

http://www.factcheck.org/just-the-facts/this_little_piggy_went_to_the_makeup.html

(the issue is discussed in this video after about one minute).

Patrick

Morgan said...

Anon at 1:26 wrote:

"However, I have only ever seen ONE like that. It was also her first pregnancy. Also, she didn't have a completely flat abdomen that 3 weeks later SUDDENLY look like a 8 month pregnancy. That is the difference here."

Exactly, and that was what I was trying to impart to ObGyn nurse. We were never talking about a woman who had a consistently small bump. Sarah went from shots just weeks before delivering in which she had a flat belly to those curious and controversial Gusty shots that show her with a huge bump.

Only a very dedicated Palin fan would try to spin that in any way that could be remotely believable. I know they're on this board. I know they post here. That's fine as long as they understand that we're not going to buy a defense we all know isn't plausible in the least.

Anonymous said...

Re: the AMA luncheon,

I appreciate the response my last post elicited. Focusing on facts helps to keep the discussion lively and moving forward.

I don't recall the exact source -- Audrey might be able to find it -- but I recall reading that the organizers were surprised that all three Palin girls came when only Piper was included, presumably because she needed to be with her mom.

It could be a ploy to support SP's expense claim for her daughters. More likely, I think, is that they brought the girls to the luncheon to justify the expense and the luncheon organizer told the truth when she said she was surprised to see Willow and Bristol there. (The luncheon was open and the topic was women's health.) If she were covering for Sarah, she wouldn't have implied her surprise at the attendance by the other girls.

While SP may claim an incredible ability to disguise a six-month pregnancy, nearly ever pregnant woman at this stage is obvious, much more so at 7 or 8 months. The notion expressed in comments that Trig was born in early February (?!) makes no sense at all. They hid the baby for over two months? And SP didn't announce the family 'expanding' for another month after that? The facts in evidence just don't support such a theory.

I am pretty confident that the statement that Trig was born on or about April 18 is true. The rest of the evidence, both photographic and circumstantial, supports that conclusion. One must stretch interpretations and the necessary conspiracy beyond any reasonable limit for that fact to be false.

If I could go back in time to any single place and be a fly on the wall, the Feb 15 luncheon would be it. We have all three Palin women in the same place, indoors, with other people around. Does ANYONE have pictures?

Dangerous

Anonymous said...

There's a technique described in a paper by Hany Farid (at Dartmouth) which can expose a composite made with two images which had been initially saved at different JPEG compressions.

I don't have photoshop and my bare-bones photo editor doesn't make it easy(even though it has a difference layer mode it seems to want to convert the image to some other format first), but this should be a piece of cake for some of you:

Save the image under consideration using a lower JPEG compression value. Superimpose the two images as layers and use the "difference" mode between layers to subtract one from the other.

Subtracting one layer from the other via "difference" will expose the "noise" that is created by saving at a lower resolution. If the resolutions are identical, there is essentially no noise: the result will be almost totally black.

However, if there is significant degradation, lots of noise will be apparent in the difference.

The key is to compress the image under a range of compression values, create the series of "difference" images, and look for a "ghost" - an area that shows a significant difference in the amount of noise. It would be most apparent near the compression values that the original lower-res image had been saved at before the composite was made.

Farid's paper contains plenty of examples of what these ghosts look like.

Not seeing ghosts doesn't mean the image is not a composite, but a ghost artifact would be pretty compelling proof that the image was manipulated.

-Ghostbuster

Anonymous said...

A couple of links that may be helpful if anyone is trying out the JPEG Ghost thing I wrote about above -

This is a step-by-step tutorial and discussion of JPEG compression in photoshop:
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/jpeg-compression/
or:
http://tinyurl.com/7n9f4m

Farid's paper, which shows examples of JPEG ghosts:
http://tinyurl.com/a495lv

-Ghostbuster

Half Sigma said...

As I said in the other thread, I don't believe that Sarah was pasted into photo #1, because of consistent chromatic aberration and consistent noise pattern in the photo.

Any "expert" who won't allow his real name to be used is worthless as an expert.

The photo is suspicious because of the lack of a date in the EXIF info and because we don't know who posted it to Flickr. But it doesn't, by itself, prove anything one way or the other, it's just another suspicious piece of evidence.

KaJo said...

Diana, if you're still surfing these blog comment threads, particularly this one on "Photo Discussion", I have some information for you, and a question.

On your Photostream block of Palin pregnancy pictures, down at the bottom there are two pictures of Sarah Palin with a curly-haired man. The pictures are evidently of the same event, but they are dated "4/10/08 a" (see http://tinyurl.com/89bm6o ) and "4/13/2008 (2)" (see http://tinyurl.com/9oq2vk ).

I've identified the guy as Joe Parrish, executive director of SAGA (Southeast Alaska Guidance Association), but I have no idea what event he and Palin were at or what they were doing.

And could you verify which of the two dates are correct? (and maybe pass along where you found the pictures?)

Thanks!

Jen said...

KaJo said...

Diana, if you're still surfing these blog comment threads, particularly this one on "Photo Discussion", I have some information for you, and a question.

On your Photostream block of Palin pregnancy pictures, down at the bottom there are two pictures of Sarah Palin with a curly-haired man. The pictures are evidently of the same event, but they are dated "4/10/08 a" (see http://tinyurl.com/89bm6o ) and "4/13/2008 (2)" (see http://tinyurl.com/9oq2vk ).

I've identified the guy as Joe Parrish, executive director of SAGA (Southeast Alaska Guidance Association), but I have no idea what event he and Palin were at or what they were doing.

And could you verify which of the two dates are correct? (and maybe pass along where you found the pictures?)

Thanks!

-----------

KaJo--

Those photos are of the same day 4/10/08 -- they are taken in front of the state capitol during the AmericaCorp swearing in ceremony. The guy is one of the people in charge of the AK group along with his wife, that's in another picture

here are the others in the set

http://picasaweb.google.com/robertson.becca/AmeriCorpsSwearingIn#5192914632546413762

Anonymous said...

I'm not up on all this, but when an offical passes self off as what they are not, isn't that a crime? Not only a hoax.

Do Government agencies that monitor fraud and hoax in Government have pertinent evidence and reports to investigate in the Palin case?

This incident involves children. Are there any child protection agencies that are investigating? Let's say a regular citizen with children at home was suspected of impersonating a pregancy and their children went along with the impersonation. Whether they were tricked or taught to lie is not the issue. Could be many reasons the parents do this, from a harmless mental case to criminal intent. At what point does the children's being compromised matter to a State agency? When can state or fed open an investigation? The church and religious belief protects a lot, but at some point that's not enough.

Taking the celebrity, Government Official out of this, parents carrying on a hoax in front of children is not abuse? Isn't the Palin's church involved? How does the Government label her church? Is it a cult?

No way should any investigation halt.

If she is Trig's Mom, there is documentation of the dangers a DS baby endured and more. There are millions of loose ends. She only gets a pass because of special favors for her position. Who can say the Palin children are safe? The polygamous FLDS cult has no incest? They look so wholesome.

Morgan said...

Margot,

I've seen several nearly hysterical comments from you today about comments "disappearing." As one of the moderators let me *assure* you that posts aren't being deleted or disappearing.

There are multiple topics on here and sometimes when I'm searching for a particular comments I have to search through several topics to find it.

So before you get upset, go back through the last several posts and *search* for the comment you want rather than assuming that someone moved it just to confuse you or whatever. No one is doing that. I promise.

Anonymous said...

--Only a very dedicated Palin fan would try to spin that in any way that could be remotely believable. I know they're on this board. I know they post here. That's fine as long as they understand that we're not going to buy a defense we all know isn't plausible in the least.--

Do you want different opinions on here or not?

KaJo said...

Thanks, Jen... :)

Morgan said...

"Do you want different opinions on here or not?"

Absolutely, but please realize when you postulate something totally unbelievable you'll be called on it, whether it's in Sarah's favor or not.

Mary G. said...

I love the ghostbusting material! I am not sure I totally understand the procedure, but the link to the original article was helpful.

Some of this evidence should be forwarded to Gusty, her station, and to factcheck.org.
PS--perhaps including a non-doctored image, even a Palin-McCain shot, would help people understand the nature of the "fakery".

Anonymous said...

Don't give up on this, Audrey. I find this most fascinating. I know the truth will come out eventually. Keep digging!

palin pregnancy truth said...

Another post in contradiction to Gusty's report. It looks like the session wrapped up before noon and a hallway picture with lots of boxes:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/121332

And another interesting post:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130204#comment-435032

Why was McAllister commenting in March for Palin? He was a reporter, not her spokesperson.

Ivyfree said...

I'd be very grateful if somebody could explain what it is the "ghostbusting" pictures show. I've tried to get to the site to see, and it won't let me on- when I hit "more information" it tells me I'm not authorized to view the page. I don't understand the details of the photographic work, so it helps me a lot to have it explained.

RW said...

for anyone having problems loading up the NEW pic site....C/P the http and put it in the top bar search slot and click the green >arrow...

KaJo said...

palin pregnancy truth @ 1/6/09 4:39 PM asked: Why was McAllister commenting in March for Palin? He was a reporter, not her spokesperson.

(re: http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130204#comment-435032 )

--------

I read that commentary, too.

I'm guessing he meant that SP talked to him in March while he was still a reporter, probably "off the cuff", informally, as a good buddy, not Gov-to-reporter.

Funny he'd slip up and comment on that, though. It doesn't seem very appropriate for his position at that time, in March.

Heck, comments from Palin or her spokesman for various topics seem to be fairly inappropriate most of the time, lately.

I've been reading about them for less than 6 months, but the whole Palin administration seems to be just so bizarre, like a tree-house club.

KaJo said...

When I saw that picture of Joe Parrish and SP together 4/10/08 that I remarked on yesterday at noon -- it completely escaped me at first...

SP isn't wearing one of her long scarves that day. ??!!

http://tinyurl.com/7tz9nq

I'm trying to imagine what she'd look like if her hands were clasped together low on her belly in that picture on that day, and I just can't see that her belly would stick out as much as it did in the Photo#1 three days later.

I can see the very faintest outward bulge of stomach just under the lighter-colored reflection of her notebook. Considering how far her arms are extended holding the notebook in this picture, she could EASILY clasp her hands, I think, and have several inches of space to spare.

Maybe she had "gas" on 4/13/08... :)

(sorry!)

Anonymous said...

I feel I should clarify before I begin this post: I don't use professional video equipment, and I'm not sure how a corded microphone operates or to what it is connected during a field reporter's interview. I found this image of a professional video camera with a corded microphone attached, so it seems that the microphone used by a reporter during an on-site interview would attach back to the camcorder held by the camera operator.

http://www.mdma.tv/images/cs1-front.jpg

So what confuses me in the Gusty pic is why the cord, traceable from Gusty's microphone and dropping down in front of her, coiling around on the floor and meandering down the hallway, disappears behind Palin's leg and doesn't double back to the camera operator. If the microphone is attached to the camera, wouldn't the cord have to curl around behind Palin and return back to the camera? Why does it just seem to stop behind her leg? (Notice there is only one cord strand on the floor leading to the area behind Palin's leg and not 2 strands of cord which would indicate the cord had looped around behind Palin and returned to its plug-in on the camcorder held by the cameraman.)

Again, I'm posing this question because I don't really know how a news media vid camera and microphone are used in an on-site interview. If this is simply the power cord for the camera equipment trailing from the camera and disappearing behind Palin's leg, then my guess is it's plugged into an outlet in the wall somewhere (but where? Behind the boxes? Under the door?). But if the cord can be traced around from Gusty's microphone and THEN disappears behind Palin, then it appears that the interview was staged and Gusty isn't really talking into a live microphone.

I'm sorry to say I have more questions than answers, but please, please keep up the great work!

VR

wayofpeace said...

VR,

i've mentioned the mystery of that chord before.

definitely 2 odd things:

it seems to be the mike's chord, so WHY is it snaking away from the camera?

and then it disappears as it moves behind SP?

Anonymous said...

Oops, thanks, wayofpeace. I've been keeping up on the recent blog comments, but I'm sorry I didn't catch yours about the cords in the Gusty photo.

Seems like you and I are on the same page in a lot of ways. I always like reading your comments and believe you bring excellent analyses to the table.

Respectfully,

VR

Patrick said...

Our friend duncan has discovered a whole pile of pictures of SP from the 11 March 2008 - and these can be directly compared with the Gusty picture. Her belly is simply not there! Duncan has made a great graphic proving that - the comparison shows exactly that on 11 March, the belly was not even close to the size that SP had on (allegedly) on 13 April.

Here are the original, "newly discovered" pictures from 11 March 2008 (a lot of them):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ayea/sets/72157604153868357/

And here is the fantastic graphic that duncan made:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3178077976/

Patrick

jpeg_gurl said...

I posted some stuff on the wrong thread about the great images at Palin Pics 4 Truth ;-) Oops!

I think two of these images are incredibly compelling: the Gusty picture with the "Edge Preserving Smoother" and the 3 Amigos with the sharpening and saturation.

These are great analyses because they are really clear to see, and easy to understand.

Here's my take on these pictures (for what it's worth): I think Palin has been composited (added) in both pictures. I think this is the case because even without analyses, the pictures look "funny" - I think we all agree that something is up with them that just makes them look not normal.

My naked eye (and lots of yours, too) see in the Gusty pic that Palin is sort of out-of-focus; the details that should be there (she is at least as close to the camera as Gusty) just aren't well resolved. It isn't that she's not in focus, but just that the information isn't there in the image. Her pose, as we agree, also looks a bit off - she's not quite in the space convincingly, and isn't looking in the right direction. There are questions about perspective, cords, cloning in Photoshop, stuff like that.... but it is easy for skeptics to just say "you're all on a crazy witch hunt and you're seeing things."

However, when you look at the filtered image, you can see *very easily* that the data in the Palin part of the image JUST ISN'T THERE! Either that pic of her came from somewhere else (most likely) or was part of the original picture, removed and "fattened up" (and downsampled or something) and then replaced (very unlikely).

All the jpeg ghosting stuff is interesting from a techie point of view, but I really think this smoothing filter makes an extremely convincing argument on its own, and simple, clear illustrations of the photographic fraud are the most likely to survive nitpicking. How can anyone explain why the Palin part of the picture doesn't have data? They can't!

With the 3 Amigos, my naked eye sees the original picture as a little spatially-flattened, Palin seems "small," Palin's eyes don't seem to focus where the 2 Amigo's eyes do, and the lighting is subtly off. People could argue that her makeup might distort highlights/reflections on her face, that her eyes are wonky naturally and don't focus properly, she really is tiny, or whatever.

However, the sharpening/saturation of the image demonstrates again that Palin's part of the image doesn't have the same quality data as the rest of the image. The artifacting in the black of her suit is out of proportion to the artifacting in other dark areas of the image.

How is it that just the Palin part has compromised data?

I don't know if the entire photo is a composite (3 Amigos added separately to the background) or some other scenario. The 2 Amigos seem similar, and perhaps come from one photo. Palin seems to come from a photoshoot that took several pics from different angles. Perhaps all three were composited into a generic shot of the hallway.

I would be curious to see the smoothing filter performed on the 3 Amigos picture.

Oh, and I think it is worth mentioning that artifacting is a natural process in the jpeg compression, so all jpegs will show some artifacting. It is "unnatural" exaggerated artifacting I'm talking about.

Jennifer said...

Kajo -
In that picture from 4/10, she has a big double chin. That is the first time I have seen any sign of weight gain in her face. Weird.

And re: all the new pictures discovered from that event in March: 1) who wears a track jacket to an official state event?! 2) she looks wider than usual in these pictures too. Her backside looks expanded more than it did during the election.

I am a firm believer that Bristol had Trig, and has not yet had Tripp.

But these new pictures are confusing me.

wayofpeace said...

PATRICK,

in that collection of new photos that DUNCAN found: curious that all those attending have either short-sleeves shirts, or light clothing.

but NOT SP, she's wearing a jacket and the ubiquitous scarf INDOORS.

Anonymous said...

LIKELY ANSWER TO THREE AMIGOS PUZZLE

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

KaJo said...

B @ 8:55 AM asked me if I have uploaded any of my stretch/squash Photo#1 efforts.

Yes, everything I've investigatively manipulated is at
http://s406.photobucket.com/albums/pp141/WestCorrespondent/Sarah%20Palin/

Compared to some of the studies others have done these past few days, mine are "elementary school level" -- I've been impressed by some of the other analyses posted lately!

---------------------------

About that view of Bristol in the gray dress at the RNC? I originally thought I saw straps or lines of something rectangular, but realized after some photo adjusting that what I was seeing was probably "couture" seaming in the dress. False alarm!! :)

palin pregnancy truth said...

So I have become obsessed with tracking down pictures and information from the April 13th session.

http://tinyurl.com/78yu2x

Hardly the quiet scene Gusty depicted.

I believe this is a picture of Palin on that day. She is wearing the same suit but her hair looks differnt? Interesting that I could see this picture but thumbnail versions have gone missing in google images:

http://www.newsminer.com/photos/2008/apr/13/1669/

http://tinyurl.com/7kpmoe

More pictures and a link to Palin's speech (audio only). However, you can hear the camera's flashing and several of the media's names:

http://juneauempire.com/stories/041408/sta_268248032.shtml

http://tinyurl.com/9vqrkv

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/audio/2008-SessionWrapPresser.MP3

http://tinyurl.com/9c2qcj

Anonymous said...

ANSWER TO 3 AMIGOS PUZZLE IMPLIES . . .

If I am right that SP and McAllister were added to the Three Amigos photo, here's my guess as to how it came about.

SP was nominated to be VP on Friday, August 29. By the next day, the s**t was hitting the fan concerning the rumor that Palin lied about being Trig's mother. I am assuming McAllister was with her. McAllister (and probably members of McCain's team) knew they were screwed if they could not drive a stake in the heart of the rumor. Photos were taken on the 30th of SP alone (for use in the fake interview pic) and with McAllister (for use in the Three Amigos pic). McAllister got hold of Carpenter and the video cameraman and promised them the moon to get them to stage the two photos in the state office building - either with Gusty in tow, or with the intention of digitally adding her in. And presto, by the 31st, the two faked pics were ready for posting. Carpenter posted them, but he screwed up and identified McAllister as press secretary, forgetting that the pics were supposed to be taken in April before McAllister became press secretary (he was hired in July).

Whaddaya think?

Brad

jeanie said...

This may be worth checking out. I found another image which can be viewed here:

http://thealaskastandard.com/?q=node/185

From viewing the source, I can tell that the picture is dated 2008/08, which is presumably August 8th.

It looks to me like she is dressed EXACTLY the same as in the two controversial hallway pictures - hairstyle (even the way various bits curl), outfit, glasses, makeup. The lighting is a bit different, but it sure could be the same day. Validating someone or other's theory that the photo was actually staged (or photoshopped) in August. My kids are calling to me, so I leave it to someone else to search for more pics from that day...

p.s. Morgan, I just checked that link and if it doesn't work, I'll be very surprised!!

jeanie said...

This may be worth checking out. I found another image which can be viewed here:

http://thealaskastandard.com/?q=node/185

From viewing the source, I can tell that the picture is dated 2008/08, which is presumably August 8th.

It looks to me like she is dressed EXACTLY the same as in the two controversial hallway pictures - hairstyle (even the way various bits curl), outfit, glasses, makeup. The lighting is a bit different, but it sure could be the same day. Validating someone or other's theory that the photo was actually staged (or photoshopped) in August. My kids are calling to me, so I leave it to someone else to search for more pics from that day...

p.s. Morgan, I just checked that link and if it doesn't work, I'll be very surprised!!

Anonymous said...

ANSWER TO 3 AMIGOS PUZZLE IMPLIES . . .



If I am right that SP and McAllister were added to the Three Amigos photo, here's my best-guess scenario as to how it came about.

 SP was nominated to be VP on Friday, August 29. By the next day, the Web was abuzz the rumor that Palin lied about being Trig's mother. I am assuming McAllister was with her. McAllister (and probably members of McCain's team) knew they were sunk if they could not drive a stake in the heart of the rumor. Photos were likely taken on the 30th of SP alone (for use in the fake interview pic) and with McAllister (for use in the Three Amigos pic). McAllister then likely got hold of Carpenter and the video cameraman and promised them the moon to get them to stage the two photos in the state office building - either with Gusty in tow, or with the intention of digitally adding her in. And presto, by the 31st, the two faked pics were ready for posting. Carpenter likely posted them, but he screwed up and identified McAllister as press secretary, forgetting that the pics were supposed to be taken in April before McAllister took the job (he was hired in July).



Whaddaya think?



Brad

jeanie said...

I double-entered a comment at 6:08/6:09 - please feel free to delete one of them!

Sorry!

KaJo said...

I don't know if this belongs in this "Photo Discussion Thread" topic, or over in the "Comments" topic, but I'll post it both places, because...

Take a look at the first of the 3 sites I've given tinyurls for below. That first site describes the Empathy Belly vs. its nearest competitor, the Pregnancy Simulator.

I think I found the pad Sarah Palin originally tried out when she did the video with Elan Frank.

Boy, I'll bet she couldn't wait for that FedEx delivery from Birthways (empathy belly) to come, cuz it's WAY more authentic!

--------------------------

Comparison site: http://tinyurl.com/9oapln

Empathy Belly: http://tinyurl.com/dlrgm

Pregnancy Simulator: http://tinyurl.com/6st629

KaJo said...

Jennifer, you wrote @ 3:17 PM 1/7/09,
"KaJo - in that picture from 4/10, she has a big double chin."

Hmmm. She has a double chin in this photo, too :)
http://tinyurl.com/7f9dx4

(OK, not much of one, 'cuz she's skinny, but in both pictures her head is tilted downward, which would naturally cause a double-chin look...I think it's middle-age-related)

Anonymous said...

works for me, brad.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the square pad which shows up on this lightened photo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3081750343/in/set-72157611175050476/

was there to cover up the writing on the pregnancy simulation pad shown in this photo.

http://www.realityworks.com/assets/images/pregProfileManGraphic.jpg

RW said...

btw, I may have mis-read a comment here on the Frontiersman NOT publishing anymore baby info.

To correct what I...posted...
It seems Mat Su Hospital will NO longer offer baby birth info..
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2009/01/07/opinion/editorials/doc49630c228fd54273946705.txt

...It seems they and their corp sponsor/owners are suddenly overly concerned with 'baby stealing'.
..well at least thats what they are saying.

The Frontiersman seems bit put off by this choice from the local hospital.
I dont blame them.

jeanie said...

"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. "

I agree with Brad - the focus is something that I kind of noticed subconsciously. What struck me is that the lighting of the hallway matches SPs lighting and the other two seem under a bit harsher glare.

The other thing that is odd is their positions relative to one another. I'm probably about SPs size and every time I'm in a group photo people invariably stand BEHIND me. Larger guys generally do not stand in FRONT of a smaller women - especially one who is supposed to be the main focus (no pun intended) of the shot!

jeanie said...

Retraction - I guess the photo of Palin wearing the same outfit, same glasses, hairstyle, etc. was published before August - sorry! It was labeled August in Dan Fagan's article. Butt shows up dated the same as the Gusty photo - ala Palin Pregnancy Truth Said... Sorry!

Anonymous said...

To KaJo: I wonder if this is what we can see under SP's top in the Elan Frank video? There is another layer visible under the infamous "black stretchy non-maternity top."

Morgan said...

***MODERATION ALERT***

I've rejected a number of comments this morning that consisted of back-and-forth sniping over who may or may not be a troll.

Please be advised that people are invited - and even encouraged - to express or even insist upon their opinions, even if they disagree with those of us who don't believe Palin was the mother of Trig.

There's a difference between a dissenter and a troll. Rude, name-calling trolls - on either side - are not allowed. Respectful debate and dissent is, and we should encourage it. Audrey has often said she does not want an echo chamber, so those dissenting voices are welcome and even necessary to keep us thinking.

We have a lot of comments coming through. Please, for the sake of readers and moderators, let's try and stick to the subject rather than going after each other.

If you truly respect Audrey's work as you say you do then show it through thoughtful comments and by not making our job any more time consuming than it is.

Thank you.

B said...

RW, Sarah claims Bristol had a baby, no one has seen this baby, soon Sarah will need to show a baby, and now MatSu hospital becomes concerned about someone "stealing babies?" LOL.

Morgan said...

"B", thanks for giving me the biggest laugh I've had this week. That was brilliant!

B said...

Brad, 3Amigos may be a composite, but Palin's picture probably came from April 13, the same day as the two photos we've seen taken the last day of the lege. Even the hair is the same, and by then Palin should have been trying to look at least 8 months pregnant. The reference to McAllister is OK too because he had that job when the photo was posted, which is when the description would be added. The fewer co-conspirators required (e.g., one photoshopper), the more likely the scenario.

Anonymous said...

The blurriest picture from the newly discovered March 11 set shows quite definitively a complete lack of a pregnant belly (& it would do well to remember that the March 14th photo with the Parnells that we've all seen shows the same thing).

See http://tinyurl.com/9e63fy

Note that in this photograph, the angle of the shot shows most of her lower abdomen and it is unequivocally flat.

rp

B said...

This is Patrick's page:

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

If that doesn't work you can find it through Google. I think I searched on flickr, palin, deception. (It's been awhile.)

B said...

KaJo,

I can't find http://s406.photobucket.com/albums/pp141/WestCorrespondent/Sarah%20Palin/

Any other way I can get to your pics? I'd say do tinyurl, but I have trouble with a lot of those.

Thanks for following up with me.

Anonymous said...

Ghostdancer,
I have photoshop and am experimenting with the levels you described. One very basic question - how do you save the original at a lower jpeg compression level. Is it through the save for web option?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 1:52PM,

I don't have access to Photoshop, but in other (more basic) programs I've used (e.g. Preview on the Mac) there is an option to specify the compression when you save a JPEG image. Maybe try searching help under the terms "JPEG" and "compression"?

Sorry I don't have a more specific answer for you.

-Ghostbuster

KaJo said...

After seeing Duncan's comparison graphic (that Patrick referred to above, 1/7/08 @ 1:39 PM), I decided to see what the 4/10/08 picture with Joe Parrish looked like in comparison.

I thought when I first looked at that picture that her belly wasn't anywhere near as expanded as it shows in the 4/13/08 Photo#1 (THREE DAYS LATER!), and my addition to the graphic proves I was right.

http://tinyurl.com/6sngdq

KaJo said...

B, go to
http://tinyurl.com/7btr5y
for the collection of my investigative photo manipulations, as well as my "curiosities", like the Google Earth view of Juneau that includes the trail from the Governor's Mansion to the State House (that SP hiked in high heels that day in one of the videos).

B said...

KaJo, I can't get to your tinyurl or your photobucket addresses. I'm dying to see your pics and haven't been able to. Any ideas?

Punkinbugg said...

Nice collection, KaJo!

Do you have the route marked out on the Google Earth picture? I guess I'm not familiar with the Juneau skyline enough to know.

Anonymous said...

KaJo, do you have the dates right on your photo comparing the baby bumps? If so, they are not all within 3 days... It is a clever and helpful way of doing the comparison of the amazing morphing pregnant abdomen.

KaJo said...

Both the middle picture and the one on the right are 2 of the 3 Duncan sized up in his original graphic, with their dates left intact.

I merely removed the one on the left and replaced it with the picture of SP from 4/10/08.

B said...

KaJo, Got to your pictures. Great job! Stretched does look more normal. Thanks.

Margot said...

Would someone remind me who is the fellow on the left in the three amigos picture?

Margot said...

I'm posting again sorry, I put the wrong address for follow up on the previous post. Who is the fellow on the left in the three amigos picture?

I have a feeling we are getting close to solving the riddle.

BTW, I sent a hard copy of the two pictures and some of the analysis by snail mail to FactCheck accompanied by a real letter identifying myself.

I figure that the time has come to send "real" old fashioned letters to the MSM. I do not mind identifying myself to them.

Keep the faith.

Margot said...

Just got out of the shower where I do my best thinking. I've been back through Audrey's site looking for the name of the fellow on the left in the 3 amigos picture. Never found what I was looking for, but my wheels started turning. I seem to remember that when I read his name I also read a comment that Mr. Lefty had a zip code that is the same as the numbers on eric's flicker account.

I believe Mr. Lefty was identified as being some sort of newsperson. and the thought flew through my head that with that occupation he could be the person who fabricated the picture. I also discovered that Andrea the reporter told FactCheck that the picture was from her camera. Well that means that both pictures were from the same camera. If the fellow on the left is in some sort of media business he associates with Andrea.

I'm starting to believe that the two of them conspired to create the false picture. Having read the statement Andrea made to FactCheck I'm starting to think she was not telling the truth. Wonder if there is a personal relationship between Mr. Lefty and Andrea?

Just for old time sake I will remind you of the caption under the picture: "Me, Governor Palin, and Bill McAllister, press secretary."

Let's not forget that McAllister became press secretary three months after the picture was taken. Whoever "me" is happens to be the person who uploaded the picture. eric is Mr. Lefty - whoever that is?

B said...

Margot,

Audrey identified "lefty" as Dan Carpenter, a photographer with KTUU - Channel 2 news (NBC Affiliate in Anchorage).

At least two Erikas who are journalists have been mentioned as possibilities for the flickr account.

Someone noted that the numbers with Eric are the zipcode for Gusty's birthplace, Bethel.

Noone with clout seems to have asked Carpenter to confirm that he did or didn't post the pictures.

Anonymous said...

Have people already ruled out Erik Hill, the staff photographer and picture editor at the Anchorage Daily News? I don't know if he ever lived in Bethel, but he may have reported on issues there. You can read a little about him at

http://tinyurl.com/7upz2u

Margot said...

I glanced at Eric's bio in the above post. I suspect he is not the person as he seems to have a stable family. I simply cannot imagine anyone risking their reputation by falsifying such an important picture.

Frankly, I think all the evidence points to Carpenter. He just looks cocky enough in this picture to try a reckless thing. In my mind both he and Gusty are up to their arm pits in what amounts to a breach of professional ethics. Remember Carpenter worked with McAllister before McAllister became press secretary.

All of a sudden when the rumors start to fly, Carpenter in an attempt to curry favor with McAllister arranged to produce this picture. McAllister may not have known about it until after the fact, but he certainly has done nothing to refute it. Remember too that Gusty told Fact Check that this was a legitimate picture and we now know it's not. Lastly, do not forget the caption. Tha's an important piece of evidence.

From what I've learned he did a pretty good job. I did a search of Dan Carpenter and he was not just a camera man. He also did still photography for the station.

Anonymous said...

I would like some photo analysis of Trig's size in the Mercede photos (undated) and the baby shower pictures (do we know that the shower actually did occur in May or that is when the photos were posted?) -
These would be interesting to compare to known dates.
Is it possible to compare the "newborn" Trig from the April 21 video with the above 2 pictures? I was thinking if a picture with SP's head size from the April 21 video could be overlaid with one of the above photos so that we can compare Trig's head size??JJ

Anonymous said...

continuing from last post -
and really a comparison of his body length might show more than a comparison of his head size... JJ