Saturday, January 24, 2009

Some New Photos to Discuss - Part Two

I have a few more new photos I would like to share, with some analysis.

The first two photos are from March 22nd, three weeks and six days prior to Trig Palin's announced birth date.

This first picture was taken of Gov. Palin at the Alaska Governor's Prayer Breakfast on March 22nd, in Anchorage. The first thing that struck me when I saw this picture is that she looked quite rounded and definitely pregnant.


Now this picture was taken - I believe - the same day, March 22nd, at the Alaska Girls' High School Basketball tournament. However, the tournament had begun on a previous day, so it is also possible that it was taken on the 20th or 21st.

And both of these pictures were taken four days BEFORE this picture, which has been seen widely, and I first discussed in this post in December.


To my eye, it's hard to explain the differences between picture one of this series (taken on 3/22) and picture three (taken 3/26 - FOUR days later) with any known physiology of pregnancy. Jokes aside, there are no "low amniotic fluid days," and every pregnancy I've ever seen (and I've seen hundreds) gets BIGGER as the days pass, not smaller. Is it possible that at the prayer breakfast, an event Gov. Palin knew would be attended by hundreds of women (many of them mothers themselves, and far more tuned in to signs of pregnancy) she took more care to "appear" pregnant; at the Juneau Museum, doing a quick bill signing with mostly high school students, she was careless?

Here's an interesting find. On Saturday, March 29th, at the Governor's Mansion in Juneau, Gov. Palin hosted a luncheon for the spouses of the Alaska state legislators. At this luncheon, Gov. Palin signed a bill authorizing a special session, to begin in June. Here's a photo of her taken that day. This photo does not have the clarity of many of the photos I have published because we do not have an original photo; what this is is a screen shot of a pdf newsletter.

Here's a news clip showing the same day.

In general, I try to be charitable. However, I have to say that, out of the panorama of Palin's maternity "wardrobe," this is the worst. She's wearing a trench coat. Inside. In her own home. At a luncheon at which she is the hostess, and most everyone else appears to be dressed rather nicely. Does this not strike everyone as odd?

The second interesting thing is that Gov. Palin is photographed here with Willow Olson, the wife of Donald Olson, who is interestingly, also pregnant. Mrs. Olson is due in mid-July (and gave birth to her second child, a son, on July 20th). Two full months after Gov. Palin's announced due date, and three months after 6 lb 2 oz Trig Palin's announced birth. Who looks more pregnant?

Here's a screen shot from the news video, taken as she bent over to sign the bill.


Trig Palin was born twenty days later.

Here's one other shot I'd like to add. In general, I have hesitated to do any photo "manipulation" beyond lightening and darkening images. However, the image of Gov. Palin with Ms. Young shows a lot, in spite of the fact that it's not very high quality. If you look carefully, you can distinguish between her black top and her black scarf. One of my helpers went in and very carefully outlined what I believe to be the scarf, then simply changed the scarf area to another color - in this case an off white. Not very sophisticated or fancy, but something anyone could try. Here it is:



Once you isolate the scarf from the shirt, it's easy to see that the line of the scarf against her body is almost straight. For those of you who are curious about the small bulge on the far side of the coat, I believe that Gov. Palin has her left hand in her pocket, but this is just a guess.

Draw your own conclusions, but mine is that this is not a woman who gave birth to a six plus pound baby twenty days later. This is also not a woman who turned into this:

in sixteen days.

215 comments:

1 – 200 of 215   Newer›   Newest»
lila said...

SP wears the same black jacket-round-necked bouse sweater ensemble that she is wearing in the Gusty photos repeatedly throughout March-April 2008. Perhaps this outfit was padded to add pregnancy "weight".

wayofpeace said...

SARAH PALIN is a liar but not a very good one.

this hoax could have been pulled off but it'd have taken the kind of craft and attention to detail shown in custom design in the movies.

it takes rigor and lots of work to maintain the illusion.

she assumed that the public was as gullible and incurious as she is.

witsendnj said...

THAT video is the money shot. Her bending over, no belly whatsoever, 3 weeks before delivery.

BINGO.

I wouldn't make so much of her "trench coat". Not my style, but it looks like some sort of "stylish" jacket.

Stick with the tummy.

And THANK YOU for your persistence!

KaJo said...

To me, that bulge on Palin's belly profile doesn't look much like hand-in-pocket artifact -- it looks more like the other lady is standing so close to Palin that her body is pressing in on Palin's jacket, causing the jacket to buckle a little.

Whatever Sarah Palin is wearing under her black shirt in the 3/29/08 picture (white jacket), it's larger than what she was wearing under her shirt 3 days before (3/26/08, posing with little girl). But not much.

Basically, the difference between 3/26 and 3/29 is she's added MORE padding from her waist up to her breastbone (still using that navy-blue rectangular "empathy belly"?).

There's virtually no belly showing BELOW her waist under that scarf. And there should be, if the other lady is any example.

Kevin said...

Audrey and Morgan,

I will understand completely if you don't post this. We don't need to give offense to anyone. But it occurred to me that there's a parallel to Sarah's "Wild Ride," and it goes a good way toward explaining why some people will believe anything, however improbable, rather than give up their belief that Sarah is telling the truth.

The parallel is in the second chapter of Luke.

How can anyone believe that Mary of Nazareth, at least eight months pregnant, spent three days jouncing on a donkey from Nazareth to Bethlehem -- when there was no need for her to accompany Joseph and they had no firm arrangements as to where they would stay when they got there?

Beats Sarah's story, doesn't it? And it's been taken as Gospel truth for about 1900 years.

Doberman said...

Any lingering doubts I have had have just been erased by these photos. No way this woman gave birth to Trig. And to Witsendnj, no that is not a stylish jacket that one would wear indoors at one's own home. It is an outdoors jacket, and it is beyond weird that Palin is wearing it inside at a luncheon at her home.

Molly said...

I hate to be contrarian, but here goes; the still pictures don't look very baby-bumpish, however, I looked at the video, and I could make a case for myself that she did have a bump, albeit disguised under that trenchcoat. Why why why was she trying so hard to cover up her baby bump? What in the WORLD is with those scarves?!?

In the leaning down shot where she's signing something, I don't think you can tell if there's a bump or not because of the disguising jacket, however, when she turns around, it did look to me like there was a roundish bump.

I think if you tracked down anyone at that event that actually took a good look at SP, they'd say that she appeared to be pregnant.

Now I am NOT saying this proves she was pregnant, only, again, that she appeared to be pregnant, but that she was going to great lengths to cover up the "bump". WHY? Well, the theory of this blog is that is was a fake bump. The reason to disguise your belly after you've announced you are pregnant is to disguise some trickery, IMHO.

luna1580 said...

audrey,

good job on changing the scarf color without altering the textures/play of light. much better than the blue pattern which could give a a false sense of flatness and be more open to criticism.

trev said...

So many photos, I cannot follow any more. A nice chart of all these photos in date order or something would be nice.
Overall, it is obvious she is not pregnant. Her story is collapsing and that is why she is speaking out more.
Even her eyes show she is hiding something.
Yep, she assumed we were as gullible and incurious as she is, perfect.

teal said...

may have mentioned it before...SP wore black on purpose.

northwestgal said...

This is my first post-been reading for a couple of months. In the first picture with the green scarf, it looks like the scarf may be hanging in a way that at first glance would make it look like a belly. Look again at the coat itself. It looks flat to me. It is the curvature of the scarf hanging over the black coat that gives the illusion of belly IMO.

Margot said...

I think things are coming to a head

http://www.themudflats.net/2009/01/24/pit-bull-vs-pit-bull-and-a-strange-hypnotic-tale/

Michele said...

So what's next? Are we just waiting for Tripp to appear? Is this ever going to have a conclusion?

PolySciSuzie said...

The only evidence I would believe at this point is DNA evidence of who is Trigs mother. Sarah and her family members need to fork over some saliva if she ever aspires to higher office. This appears to be a hoax she probably would have gotten away with had she not agreed to be McCains running mate.
Palin appears to love talking to the media, when is someone going to ask her for the proof?

jul said...

WOW! Great work Audrey and company!

Lady Rose said...

The truth just keeps piling up.

Thanks to all involved for all your hard work and persistance.

anon said...

It's curious that SP would be so careless in her "padding", I think this and the wearing of the same black jacket show some real hostility towards this "pregnancy".
Funny too, how there is only one photo of SP with her stomach protruding further out than her breasts, the woman had been pregnant 4 times before, she had to know that her "padding" was less than adequate. Again was she hostile, conflicted or just too vain to do the charade right.
It would be interesting to find out what the pregnant woman in the 3-29 photo thought, I bet she was looking at SP's belly and thinking "where is it?".

MomME said...

Great new photos, excellent analysis as usual... and way to go, wayofpeace - this is exactly why Palin is so nervous & defensive these days - she ASSUMED everyone would simply believe her ("because she said so"...) and was never expecting this level of scrutiny! Keep up the sleuthing!!

P.S. Kevin, love your comparison to the other "wild ride"!

Mary G. said...

Trench coats indoors always raise flags....
The picture with the legislator's pregnant wife--due two months AFTER Palin, if you believe that Trig was early, which I have begun to doubt (it just got Palin out of carrying on the charade for longer than she had to)--is pretty damning. That is no pregnant belly on Palin, with or without camouflaging shawl.

Windy City Woman said...

Thanks for finding and posting these photos. We now have enough smoking guns for a massive shoot-out at the OK Corral.

If Sarah had given more thought to faking the pregnancy, she would have bought a supply of fake bellies, in assorted sizes, and worn them in succession, smallest to largest, so that she would appear to "grow" like a real pregnant woman.

Maybe the day of the Gusty photo was a "loose abs" day.

Have any of you seen the old Henry Fonda movie, "Grapes of Wrath"? In that movie, his sister is supposed to be pregnant. In the beginning, Henry Fonda's character remarks on it, yet the actress does not appear pregnant. At the end of the movie he says something to the effect that she is soon to deliver. SHE STILL DOES NOT APPEAR PREGNANT. Was it considered improper to appear pregnant in movies back then? Maybe Sarah is really Rosa Sharon Joad (or whatever the character's name was).

Alice Rooney said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Skeptical said...

Well, I don't believe the accuracy of the Nazareth story either. Just because a story is reiterated time and again doesn't make it accurate. Is the bible really the only source of historical information or do you bother to check the accuracy against other sources? Theologians teach that metaphors and analogies are utilized in biblical writing.

I don't believe Trig is SP's baby. From the moment I heard about the implausible events from TX to AK I developed serious reservation about her penchant for truth. A woman who is serious about protecting her unborn child would not engage in such reckless behavior, particularly with a known Down's baby who could have a panoply of development problems.

Whether the baby was Bristol's or the McCain Campaign bought it for looks or it was born in Nazareth doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that SP was not telling the truth and was not smart enough to pull off a fake pregnancy. How the heck could she possibly run the United States of America. Please!

KaJo said...

In all this time I've never had any doubts that I don't want Sarah Palin anywhere near Washington D.C. in any capacity, but the absolute capper to confirming my opinion about her was that letter Margot posted in the previous blog topic, from the former fundamentalist believer who's now engaged in helping others recover from that kind of religious fundamentalism.

If you haven't read it yet, do.

Just for curiosity's sake, I Googled the letter/author, and found it had been published on many news/political blogs last fall.

Each blog should set a "reprint" command for that letter about every 3 months, or whenever Sarah Palin gets another wave of MSM publicity.

wayofpeace said...

be sure to check MARGOT's link to MUDFLATS.

seems like the proverbial 'stuff' is about to hit the fan!

again i can only think that there's blood on the water, and the sharks are circling.

and of course, she has NOT helped her cause by making herself a bigger target by flailing her arms and splashing her presence in all directions.

in all sincerity: for the sake of her children, i wish she would just own up and resign.

sandra said...

The mudflats story leads me to think that McAllister was ERIK99559. (My verification word is "psycho."

sandra in oregon

luna1580 said...

the los angeles times has picked up the story of emmonak!

http://tinyurl.com/bws2rk

it is the first non-AK news outlet to do so. let's see who else follows and shines a light on SP's governing "prowess."

Amy1 said...

Kevin -- Good addition to our discussion, but for a different reason than yours, IMHO.


PART I:

We do what we gotta do! This is esp true for women about to deliver.

It is my understanding that Mary and Joseph had no choice, or felt they did not. Ditto for women trekking through Siberia on a political prisoners' march in 1949 just before delivering, ditto women in the holocaust or WWII, or, I daresay even this very day, running across the Mexican border to safety or anywhere where there is poverty, threat, lack of choices -- or war!

Plus, in the olden days, and even today, we did not/do not always know we have certain risk factors so we cannot prepare for them.

One of the recurring themes (no, MANTRAs!) in this blog is how many choices SP had re the wild ride, assuming she was preg (which I emphatically do not):

--she might have avoided her documented, extensive airplane travel in the months immediately before delivery;

--she could have stayed home for that specific trip (whatever happened to a video speech or a live feed to the gov conference?, if one cared enough to set it up);

--she could have sought med attention in TX;

--she could have stopped at any of the good med centers on her way home;

--and I'm sure I missed about 10 other choices we have mentioned here repeatedly that a normal, concerned pregnant woman would have taken advantage of.

So: we are not talking about pioneer-lady endurance and fortitude here (admirable as those qualities are), we are talking about judgment suitable for leading the free world with all its subtleties and choices. We are talking about good judgment, not lack of choices. And we are talking about NOT ignoring risk factors once we know about them.


PART II:

I'll bet Mary and Joseph would have chosen a safer, more comfortable spot if they had had a choice! The animals all around them add a nice touch to an oft-told story, but I bet Mary would have picked clean sheets and a midwife if she had been able to.

(OR: if SP were arriving on a donkey, and the long-ago innkeeper says to her: "Lady, you are 44 yrs old, and I happen to know you have a pregnancy with several risk factors -- I have a skilled midwife over here, next house over -- with a warm, clean room for you. Which do you choose? the stable or the safe, clean, warm, place with experienced staff?" And if Mary were to pick the stable and the next morning show off a slightly not-newborn baby that she claims is a month premature, would the Innkeeper seem to you to be a tin-hat conspiracy-theorist crazy-person if he said to himself: "Hmmm, something's not right here." ???

Shelby said...

I think anyone who follows this blog is pretty darn convinced Sarah Palin was never pregnant with Trig Palin. I've yet to see ONE picture (except the gusty one) that show anything close to a pregnant woman. And the Gusty ones are so out of line with every other picture of her, they don't even make sense anymore. Coupled with her BS story I'm 100% convinced.

But here is my question. What do you think the reaction of the general public will be when it is finally proved without doubt that Palin was never pregnant with Trig and perpetuated a somewhat complicated hoax to convince the public she was?

Are there people out there who would 'forgive' her?
Are there people out there who whill think it's no one's business and would cover their ears because the story is personal?
Would it be the end of Sarah Palin, politician?

Seriously. I really wonder. I personally think Palin's chances to go anywhere nationally are slim to none. She just doesn't have what it takes to carry any party, especially a seriously damaged Republian party. She does have a strange magnetic appeal based on her unusal back-story. But her publicized back-story is so at odds from the truth of who she really is, that even that story is becoming harder and harder to feed to the public. I've noticed MSM media stories because increasingly sceptical towards her and especially her 'poor me, the media hates me and my family' schtik. It's really not going to play in Peoria.

So seriously, what would the public's reaction be to the truth that Palin lied about giving birth to her DS son, covered for someone (most likely her teenage daughter) and went to some lengths to promote the hoax?

How would the MSM treat the story?

I'm curious because I do think the day is going to come. Something will break.

No one has seen Tripp and no one has seen Bristol in an awfully long time.

How will the public react to it?

MomME said...

"Loose abs days" - good one, Windy City Woman! The compilation of photos on this website shows just how weak Sarah's bellygate story really is...

Amy1 said...

Skeptical -- love yr last paragraph!

wayofpeace: Yes, I'd like it better too if the hoax had been done with more care, more attn to detail. I'd respect SP more in the morning.

Margot -- thx for a good link to email-gate. I hope Andree McCleod reads us here. Looks like we are heading for the same goal post.

Alex said...

Actually, Kevin, I find your reminder about the Wild Ride to Bethlehem intriguing but maybe not for the reason you intended.

Sarah's proved herself to be a Grandiose Thinker ( I Can be President!) many times over. So why wouldn't she consider an "Immaculate Conception" her right as an Important Woman?

----

Good thinking, Audrey, on altering the scarf color. However, I don't agree about the white jacket worn at the luncheon. Before I read your comment about it being an unsuitable "trench coat," my thought had been "No Black!" The jacket actually looked a bit more stylish (and svelte) than her other dumpy pregnancy outfits. I like your theory that her padding had to be more accurate to pass muster among all those women!

But in the end, we all tend to see what we're told to see-- until someone reminds us to LOOK.

jeanie said...

Teal said...

"SP wore black on purpose."

Yes! I mentioned this before on some post or other, too. EVERY single time she's been photographed between maybe December and April she's been wearing black! She should have dyed her hair, put on some black lipstick and maybe pierced an eyebrow so people could just assume she went Goth! Does she normally wear any other color?

jeanie said...

Skeptical said...

"What does matter is that SP was not telling the truth and was not smart enough to pull off a fake pregnancy. How the heck could she possibly run the United States of America."

Maybe she would have done better if she'd had a Secretary of Keeping Stories Straight, Secretary of Actual Pregnancy Facts, and especially a Secretary of Wardrobe and Padding. Of course, she might have gone rogue on them, too!

B said...

Someone on Mudflats suggested we'll finally see Tripp on 2/2.

Guess he'll see his shadow and then hide for six more weeks.

Half Sigma said...

"What does matter is that SP was not telling the truth and was not smart enough to pull off a fake pregnancy."

Actually, she DID pull it off, only readers of this blog think she wasn't pregnant.

B said...

Jeanie, "Secretary of Keeping Stories Straight" -- I like it!

Shelby, I think how the public deals with the truth about Trig will depend upon whether Sarah first tells the truth herself, with her own spin, or whether the truth comes from others while she continues to deny it and call them names.

Maybe once she has the book advance in the bag, she will decide to get this aired between elections, where it does the least harm to her. But I don't think she is convinced that the public will ever believe us or even care. Hope she's wrong.

wayofpeace said...

SHELBY,

if she has an epiphany and sees the error of her ways and manages to articulate sincerely the motives for doing this; she would be absolved, we americans are terminal forgivers.

BUT, if she owns up but just as a public relations stunt, and to stay ahead of the inevitable exposure; i am not so sure.

...

BTW i like BELLY-gate!

the belly--or the lack thereof--is the strongest evidence.

Dinky P. said...

There are two photo's Sarah is not wearing a scarf. One with no belly in March and one with a belly 1 week before birth. Seems odd that Sarah finally showed us her belly a week before Trigs birth. Why NO scarf in that photo?

Pipsqueak said...

Half Sigma wrote: said...
"Actually, she [Sarah Palin] DID pull it off, only readers of this blog think she wasn't pregnant."

If Palin had "pulled it off," then Lyda Green, head of the GOP in Alaska, wouldn't have said, upon hearing Palin's pregnancy announcement in March 2008: "She's very well-disguised."

FROM: http://www.adn.com/front/story/336402.html

"But people just couldn't believe the news [of Palin's pregnancy].

'Really? No!' said Bethel state Rep. Mary Nelson, who is close to giving birth herself.

'It's wonderful. She's very well-disguised,' said Senate President Lyda Green, a mother of three who has sometimes sparred with Palin politically. 'When I was five months pregnant, there was absolutely no question that I was with child.'"

Windy City Woman said...

Dinky P.,
I think Sarah was "scarf-less" in the big-tummy pictures because the purpose of the scarf was to disguise the fact that she had little to no pregnant tummy.

Someone asked whether Sarah normally wears black. Remember during the campaign she usually wore brightly colored jackets--I remember pink and maybe red. So the RNC, Saks and Neiman-Marcus have better taste.

Ennealogic said...

Re: the video-- it's so obvious she's not really pregnant at that Spouse's Luncheon. Look at the way she moves! If you truly have a 7+ month belly, you lean back and move with much different steps. You can't - you don't - trip around like that.

Black on black, nice try. Aside from the "fashion camouflage," nothing in demeanor, posture, or appearance gives any support at all to the notion she is in an advanced stage of pregnancy.

Every woman on this planet who has given birth should be able to see that.

Thanks again, Audrey, for yet another slam dunk.

Doubting Thomas said...

I do not know when this photo was taken, but I am sharing to show that SP has no fashion sense (at least not before the RNC let her run amok on their expense). That she tends to dress very dowdy, baggy and plain.
http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/sarah-palin-on-a-harley.jpg

Avvid said...

One thing that's different between Sarah's "wild ride" and women from the past-- in the old days it was simply accepted that a large percentage of women and babies would die during childbirth. I have never heard of any evidence that having a child in a hospital reduced mortality in history then having one somewhere else. In fact, I remember a report about a historical hospital ward where women who delivered their babies as they were heading to the hospital were more likely to survive childbirth than were the woman who delivered in the ward. In that case, it turned out that the ward doctors also worked with cadavers and weren't washing their hands between their different duties.

However, now in the US maternal and infant mortality during childbirth is very low, in large part because we have medical resources to assist when something going wrong. While Audrey knows more about this than I, it is my understanding that women who prefer home births are counseled to make sure they have a low-risk pregnancy, and even then, here are times when medical intervention ends up being sought. For a modern US woman to intentionally take herself somewhere where there is no possibility of medical intervention after labor has begun strikes me as a very different decision from any decision a pregnant woman could have made prior to modern medicine. When a woman gives birth on a plane, it makes the news, and part of the new story always seems to be the pilot communicating with hospitals on he ground, and that the baby came unexpectedly early.

Many people have pointed out that Sarah didn't do what most people would do--immediately go to a hospital when she noticed she was leaking amniotic fluid and believed she was having contractions prematurely. But I think it is important that Sarah made not just, one, but TWO odd decisions at that point.

First, Sarah didn't JUST say "I'm willing to risk this child's life to try to have him born in Alaska"-- if that had been he issue she would have gotten on a 7 a.m. flight. Nor did she JUST decide that giving her speech was more important than getting immediate medical attention-- if that had been he case, she would have gone to a hospital after her speech instead of getting on a plane. Rather, Sarah first decided that giving her speech was more important than having her child born in Alaska or seeking medical attention. Then, after completely her speech, she made the second odd decision that trying to have her child born in Alaska was more important than seeking medical attention.

Seems to me Sarah either (1) wasn't pregnant and so correctly knew that she would not endanger Trig (or be subjected to public labor) by flying when she wanted, or (2) was so arrogant that she incorrectly believed she could somehow control or predict the pace of her labor to suit her convenience, and then got VERY lucky.

Doubting Thomas said...

She sure doesn't look huge like the gusty photo's in this pic...

[quote]Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Taken at the Alaska Airmen's Trade Show in Anchorage, Alaska in May 2008.
[/quote]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sarah_Palin_seated.jpg

Betsy S said...

I'd like to give SP the benefit of the doubt. She claimed a pregnancy to shield her daughter Bristol. This is a rather old fashioned idea, but understandable, given
her somewhat unsophisticated attitudes, her general ignorance and her lack of understanding of modern cultural behavior. Because of this ignorance, she posited a highly unbelievable "wild ride" lie, which required a lot of backup and more lies to defend it. Her father's "water breaking" remark might have necessitated some more stories and exaggerations.
Now she is stuck with so many lies that it is just about impossible for her to emerge with any credibility at all for her political future. If she had been able to merely confess to the coverup for Bristol this could have been acceptable for many--but the little lies, the erractic pregnancy outfits and photos, the drive to Wasilla past the preferred hospitals, her parents holding the "newborn", the "needing to breast feed", the new pregnancy of Bristol (which sounds more like a Rovian ploy than anything), have all brought this farcical scenario to a point that cannot be refuted by any easy means. The MSM has not been SP's enemy, she herself has done the worst, by adding hoax on hoax. If there is a Tripp, why is there no mention of him in any MSM paper since his reported birth, on Dec 27th or 28th? Not one photo, not one further mention in People, which hasn't apologized for an incorrect announcement. I'm thinking of that book guy who lied on Oprah--if she perpetrates this farce in a book it'll be the whack job of all time.

Doubting Thomas said...

Wouldn't Bristol be around 7 months in this pic? she looks skinner than at the RNC when they announced she was 5 months along...

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/bYIa41ahZn6/Sarah+Palin+Campaigns+Battleground+State+Western/pO6V7l3C0aR/Bristol+Palin

KaJo said...

RE: the pic URL Doubting Thomas (4:57 PM) posted:

That snow princess outfit Piper Palin is wearing in the picture is reminiscent of the Swan outfit Scandinavian singer Bjork wore to the 2001 Oscars...

wayofpeace said...

great catch, DOUBTING THOMAS.

there is NO evidence of advance pregnancy for BRISTOL there.

WEIRD!

Ohio mom said...

Doubting Thomas, that's a great picture, except I wonder if Willow hasn't been misidentified as Bristol. If it really is Bristol, you're right, she looks much less pregnant than she did at the RNC. In fact, she doesn't look pregnant at all.

nickname said...

In the linked photos (from "Doubting Thomas"), Ms. Palin is wearing a long scarf.

The photos were taken sometime this past Fall.

Did Ms. Palin FREQUENTLY wear long scarves AFTER the birth of Trig?

Jennifer said...

Doubting Thomas -

That is Willow.

Look down below that picture at the picture of Bristol wearing black and holding Trig. Bristol was definitely pregnant. Even has that "leaning back" stance we've been discussing.

Ennealogic said...

I know there was a topic with a discussion about the CBJ letter, but I don't recall if this point was covered. Bear with me...

How likely is it that CBJ (supposedly a real doctor who really signed the PDF letter we saw on election eve) would have said,

"[evaluations ensured]...there was no significant congenital heart disease or other condition of the baby that would preclude delivery at her home community hospital."

Can you say that for a 44-yr old who is about to birth a Down syndrome baby? Can you say ahead of time that hey, give birth on an airplane, at home, or at a local clinic or community hospital with no neonatal facilities -- no sweat?

Can you really? Would any MD really say that?

pearlygirl said...

I do believe that it is Willow in the picture. Bristol disappeared off the campaign trail soon after the RNC. (Remember the milk carton spoof with her picture?) Willow's profile and hair are only slightly different than her sister's. I remember the photo and references to this campaign stop because Piper's outfit is actually supposed to be a "Snow Princess" Halloween costume. Also I'm originally from PA and my ears still have a tendency to prick up whenever PA is in the news despite not having lived there in years. However, I love your observant eye doubting Thomas. As to the scarf, not to throw the Palin Pit-bull a bone, but it was late Oct in PA and could reasonably enough be chilly.

On a side note, my thanks to all of you who make such great contributions and keep this a very intelligent and critical blog.

Of course, I don't bring this subject up much to friends and never to my right wingnut relatives, but it's been interesting when I asked a few friends to find a picture of baby Tripp or ANY news story of his birth other being sited "as reported by People Mag" I've considered it a feather in my tin-foil hat.

pearlygirl said...

Actually the caption below Doubting Thomas' photo is kind of ironic "...with husband (L-R) Todd, daughters Bristol holding son Trig and Piper at a campaign rally..."

even though I'm pretty sure that it is Willow and just unintentional wording---it says "Bristol holding son Trig"

Journalistic Freudian slip?

midnightcajun said...

Shelby pondered how people will react when the truth about Sarah's nonpregnancy is finally known.

Ironically, suspect I suspect most of the good moral uber-Christian types over at TeamSarah will find an excuse for what she did ("Oh, she's such a good mother, doing that to protect her daughter's reputation") and be angry with the media/liberal bloggers for sticking their nose into something that should be "private".

As for the rest, most will probably think what they're told to think! Seriously. How many people think for themselves? So much will depend on what kind of spin is put on this.

The problem with the "she did it to protect her daughter" line is that this isn't 1950 anymore. There is a level of duplicity here that I think many will find disturbing, if they think about it. What kind of message is this woman sending to her children about admitting to mistakes and "facing the music"? What kind of woman could conceive of this charade and carry it though? It's madness.

Molly said...

Doubting Thomas,

I am 99.99% certain that that is Willow, not Bristol.

The "press" can't seem to keep them straight.

Tootsie said...

In Doubting Thomas' photo link - that is Willow holding Trig in his elephant costume and Snow Princess Piper in what I think is a sweet little Victorian-like outfit on Halloween. The photo is mislabeled at it being Bristol.

regina said...

I believe that's Willow. Bristol is taller and her hair is longer. At that stage of the campaign both Bristol and Levi had disappeared from the scene...

dipsydoodlenoodle said...

If Tripp isn't born yet and the Palins release photos of him in February saying that they were waiting for a money deal or whatever I think it'll be too stupid because people will have lost interest in the story then - why wait 2 months to release baby photos when no one (or less) people are interested and people are less likely to want to pay for the photos. The only reason I can see for releasing photos so late is because there is no Tripp yet.

I'm still half hoping Tripp hasn't been born and Tripp turns out to be a girl - I'd love a scenatio like that - Imagine explaining your way outta that one.

Truthseeker2 said...

No, that's Willow, not Bristol. The two do look somewhat alike, but Willow is quite a bit shorter than Bristol and Sarah.

Patrick said...

To Doubting Thomas:

Unfortunately, this is Willow in this picture.

Bristol and Willow are frequently mistaken in press pictures.

But of course, one should ask the question: Where is Tripp? Where is Bristol? Where is Levi?

Mom of One, Esq. said...

Doubting Thomas- pretty sure that's Willow.

But the picture raises a good question-- is dressing Trig up as Dumbo just about the most classless thing you've ever seen?

LondonBridges said...

Perhaps someone can come up with a series of pictures and characteristics of Willow and Bristol, as erroneously confusing the two, can be highly problematic.

One observation I have is that Bristol is as tall as Sarah without the beehive head bump. Willow, at least in the past, is much shorter.

leu2500 said...

I agree with Ohio Mom. I think that's Willow, not Bristol, in the picture.

Headtrip Honey said...

Doubting Thomas, that's definitely Willow, not Bristol.

They do look alike, though, so people often mix them up.

Jen said...

to Avvid:

Rather, Sarah first decided that giving her speech was more important than having her child born in Alaska or seeking medical attention. Then, after completely her speech, she made the second odd decision that trying to have her child born in Alaska was more important than seeking medical attention.

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

what most people do not realize is that Sarah also attended a forum that included discussion about the upcoming election -- a moderator asked who, of the governors, would NOT accept a nod from McCain as VP and Sarah did NOT raise her hand.

So, apparently, Sarah making it publicly known that she wouldn't turn down a VP nod was also MORE important to her than getting to a hospital or back to Alaska.

B said...

I can tell B & W apart, but I can't say exactly why. A few ideas:

Both are beautiful girls, but Willow has a sweeter, prettier, less somber face.

Bristol resembles Todd more. Willow resembles Sarah more.

Willow's hair is usually shorter.

These could be because Bristol is taller:

Willow's face is shorter and rounder.

Willow's chin is less pronounced.

Willow's profile is flatter.

Willow's eyes squint more often.

An aside -- Looking at the RNC pics I realized that Bristol's poor choice of a dress did not look as bad on her when she was standing on stage. When she was sitting, the dress pushed against her so as to create the unsightly sofa bolster. I think the McCain campaign chose that style to make her look 5 mos. pregnant, but didn't have her sit down in it to see that it made her look like a nursing mother with towels on her chest to prevent leakage.

luna1580 said...

mom-

i think SP was just dressing trig as a "baby republican," symbolized by the elephant, for halloween. as much as i dislike her, it seemed cute and innocent.

also, elephants -aside from "dumbo" (and many republicans in power) are renowned for their intelligence, memory, social bonds, and are some of the the few animals that can recognize themselves in a mirror (showing knowledge of self). they have also been observed in behaviors where they appear to be "mourning" their dead, which -if found to be true- would be very significant in animal behavior.

do people today even watch "dumbo?" i know i haven't seen it in more than 20 years.

tb said...

What do you think of this?
Its video taken on the same day as the nail in the coffin photo. Between 43 and 47 seconds in the video, SP leans back in the chair and the top of a very pregnant belly is visible. Fake belly or pregnant belly?

http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/2036132

KaJo said...

Betsy S said January 25, 2009 4:43 PM ....This is a rather old fashioned idea, but understandable, given her somewhat unsophisticated attitudes, her general ignorance and her lack of understanding of modern cultural behavior.

This is one facet of why Sarah Palin shouldn't even be Governor of a state, ANY state, let alone anything in national office. It just boggles my mind that she has such a blindly devoted ~66,000 fanatic following.

Although from what I've read at several blogsites dedicated to Sarah Palin, most of them really believe she's sophisticated (look how she dressed during the campaign!!), intelligent (listen to her speeches!!), and capable of leading this great country (she has experience!! look how well she's leading Alaska!!). They actually thought her SoS speech the other day was the best she'd ever given.

They couldn't be more mesmerized if they'd had that little gold star/cross pendant waving in front of their eyes en masse.

Dee said...

Remember pictures always make you look bigger not smaller. Some people have suggested that a baby bump could be hidden and that she might have appeared pregnant to he people who saw her in person. That seems unlikely. Pictures always add pounds, they never subtract them unless they have been digitally altered or some clever photographer has lit the person just right to cast slimming shadows. Sara looks like a twig in all of those pictures. Without the context of "is she or isn't she pregnant" nobody in a million years would think she looks pregnant. She is a very slim women with a flat stomach. Those clothes drape from her body the way they do on models.

Interestingly, Willow Olson does not look pregnant in the shot with Sara, she simply looks like a big women. There is no pregnant belly standing out. She has a big stomach, a big chest, big thighs, big arms. She is just big. I don't think anyone would anyone could assume a pregnant belly based on just this shot. She is the kind of women who could surprise with announcing she is seven months pregnant. She is the women in your office who was large to start with and has recently gotten larger and you are afraid to ask her if she is expecting because you might offend when she tells you she isn't. Sara, on the other hand is a twig. With her thin arms, small chest, small thighs and bottom, the pregnant belly is going to be standing out there for all to see.

The only thing Sara has on her side is the assumption that most people will dismiss out hand the idea that anybody - let alone a state governor would be crazy enough to fake a pregnancy. This is why you have people all over the left blogospher who loath Palin but insist that the idea that she is not Trig's birthmother is insane and ban all discussion of it as wacky talk. They choose to believe that Trig has been conclusively proven to be the biological child of Sara when nothing could be further from the truth.

Morgan said...

***From the moderator***

Thanks, Don G., for your last comment. I'd not heard that rumor before either and wrongly assumed it was something that was reported on the news. Turns out that it had never been verified so I removed the comment and also yours alluding to it.

Good eye, that.

To those who want to make moderating a little easier, if you aren't sure whether something is true, look for a news account before posting it.

Thanks!

Doubting Thomas said...

tb said...
What do you think of this?
Its video taken on the same day as the nail in the coffin photo. Between 43 and 47 seconds in the video, SP leans back in the chair and the top of a very pregnant belly is visible. Fake belly or pregnant belly?

http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/2036132
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I watched this video carefully, and at no point did I see a "very pregnant belly". At one point she does push back from the table, but the channel 11 logo was in the way or Sarah's hands were in the way. There was nothing conclusive to my eyes in that video.

tb said...

Doubting Thomas...

There is no channel 11 logo or hands in the way between 45 and 47 seconds of the video. The video also gives the option to zoom in. Its a small glimpse but it is there. Maybe some photo slueths could freeze the frame and outline the profile like some of the other photos.

luna1580 said...

morgan, about your last note-

i LOVE the idea of people always making an effort to give the source (NYT, people, enquirer, teamsarah, mudflats, etc.) of facts & rumors, both so we can take the story with an appropriately-portioned grain of salt, and so other readers can find the original article/blog/what-have-you and read it themselves.

not that people can't make un-sourced speculations and still be credible -as long as they label them as thoughts and opinions. and no one remembers where every single thing they read came from (google is always a friend here), it's just very nice to keep this discussion as "real" as we can.

people trying to stick to "the facts" makes this much more like legitimate citizen journalism and much less like a bunch of people ranting.

thanks again for keeping the standards high :)

Morgan said...

TB,

There is a swell there, but I don't think it's a pregnant belly any more than I think those curious, misshapen bumps under her clothes at the museum and the Elan Frank video were positive indicators of pregnancy.

If I was an average person who saw *only* that shot or *only* the Gusty video then I could mistake her for a pregnant woman. But in looking at all the evidence this doesn't prove a pregnancy any more than the Gusty shot does. The inconsistencies in the photos leading up to her "birth" are just too unbelievable.

And if you looked back through all the photos critically you'd likely feel the same way, unless you'd already made your mind up that she was pregnant.

luna1580 said...

tb & doubting tom-

i watched that video so long ago, when i was double checking everything about "the nail in the coffin pic" taken of SP at that same event, i'd forgotten it!

i have no logo-problems, but the glimpse of her as she turns away from the table to her left around :45 is so brief....it's hard to say what we see.

it does look, to me, like she has a slight curve going out just under her bust line when she turns, but definitely not enough to turn into the gusty pics 18 days later.

tb go here to see her standing up, if you have already:

http://tinyurl.com/5vx6ch

Ohio mom said...

tb, I watched the video in full screen with no logo, yet I didn't see a thing. At one point (46-48 sec) Sarah moved and I saw the inside of her coat, but no belly.

samper said...

Interesting, the reference to Mary & Joseph with the whole gettin' to the manger bit.

For those of us who believe in and rely on the most popular book for spiritual matters of all time, I submit the following:

The one small little difference here is that Mary was carrying the Son of God, Jesus Christ. ANYTHING is possible and believable in that context. Even the fact that she was a VIRGIN who gave birth to a baby boy on Christmas.

Trig is not the Savior. I think we're safe in establishing this as fact.

There is nothing, then, on which to support/believe her Wild Ride story, given the plethora of options, conditions of the pregnancy, and decisions made.

If she can be this reckless with the "birth" of her own son, how reckless could she be with our country?

regina said...

The nail in the coffin photo shows that she has some kind of padding, but she still doesn't look pregnant enough. In the video, because she's sitting, the pad may have been pushed up and gives the illusion of a bigger bump. You can try it at home...

Diana said...

Wow...I am always amazed at how great the posts are. Sometimes when I just get burned out on this... I take a few days off. When I come back and read the post I am always so impressed with everyone's insights and findings.

Here are a couple more finds from my end. The family photo with Bristol dated August 2008....well it looks like I just found the real date. Sept. 14, 2008. In the first link is the family photo...in the second link is Bristol and Piper inside a house....with the same clothes on from the family photo. Sarah is also there talking either to a friend or a photographer??

http://tinyurl.com/bayak4

http://tinyurl.com/da9sdf

This one is really interesting even though the quality is not so good. It looks like Bristol is shopping for pampers with her mom and Trig. I can't tell what date it is...but Trig is a lot bigger than during the convention. If anyone has skills with photo shop and can get this clearer we can probably tell more:

http://tinyurl.com/bdnjj3

As always I am continuing to pursue leads and photos. I have developed a pretty extensive "Sarah" flicker account. I honestly don't know why I am so concerned with this. I think it is that I just can't believe she thought we were so stupid and that she is so ambitious!

I never cared before about anyone's secrets.... and feel families should have their privacy. But it is different when she has aspirations to become the next President. I was looking through some of her supporter sites and they are in full force to elect her in 2012.

So I have no choice but to continue this until the truth comes out. There is no way I can sleep soundly at night while I know that she is still pursuing that goal!

I know it get tedious and I get frustrated just like everyone else...but when I see Audrey come up with those amazing pictures and hear the continued diligence from everyone on this blog it keeps me searching too.

With this type of site....with the dedication everyone has.... we will find the answers to our questions and reveal them for all to see!

ps....I see we have someone from Fairbanks on today! HELLO!!

luna1580 said...

diana-

very good job with the new pics/putting them together. are you "wilemore" or did you just find them there? it's hard to keep track of screen names for everybody, sorry.

how did you date the 2nd one, with the girls in the clothes from the formal portrait, to september 14, 2008?

does that match the lack of snow on the mountain in the portrait?

anytime a firm picture date can be established it's very important.

thanks.

Truthseeker2 said...

Just to clarify, Diana, your family photos are from Sept 14 2007, not 2008. They are properly dated on the Flickr page but you have the wrong date here on the blog.

regina said...

Diana,

These photos are from 2007, not 2008...

You do have quite a collection!

Diana said...

I had another thought today about the use of blog sites as a news source for information. It seems to me that blog sites are gaining the credibilty that other MSM have.

It reminds me of when reality TV took over the sitcoms. Everyone in the industry hated it. But people wanted to watch programs without the spin...and about real situations.

I think that is what blog sites are becomng. Between U-tube and blog sites we are becoming the new...news source.

Do we always have all the facts correct...no. Are we always searching for the truth...yes.

U-Tube and Blog site are created by real people who are not held hostage by any political movement, or caught up in media concerns or office politics. We are not motivated by money but a need to express our frustrations...ask our questions...and seek answers to our concerns.

Just ordinary people trying to discern the truth. With the internet we can do what couldn't be done in the past. We have hundreds and thousand of people who take the time to get involved in searching for the truth. Not one person or two...but thousands searching for answers.

It is up to us to tell our stories...ask our questions and add up facts before we gain anyones respect,trust and credibility. But we are on our way!

Blog sites are building an incredible following and people are turning to them to find the truths they can't find in the MSM. Who knows that better than all of us following this site. Where is the media??? Who is following up on our concerns...like....where is Bristol and Tripp??? WE ARE!!!

We have come to a point where we don't need the MSM following a story like this. We don't have our hands tied or our bosses holding us back from pursuing this story. We just need a credible Moderator like Audrey and Morgan...who will keep it on point and all of us...doing our part!!

Maybe the MSM should be a little worried. This is the new U-Tube...and reality news. Honest to goodness...truth seeking American's are not turning away from stories like this but are turning to blog sites.

We have been told by our current President... that this is our Country and that we must step up and get involved. I believe so much in that. We have to be involved and not play victim to the Medias bias or lack of effort. I for one love to find the truth and am willing to pursue it with all of my energy

So let's get busy and find the truth to this story and put it to rest so we can go onto the next one!

The Obamacon said...

"I am 99.99% certain that that is Willow, not Bristol.

The "press" can't seem to keep them straight."


That's an interesting point. I wonder if Lori Tipton could have mistaken Willow for Bristol?

Mom of One, Esq. said...

When SP did the People interview in September and spoke about Trig's birth, and when she spoke to local reporters immediately after the birth, I seem to remember her mentioning things about Piper's reaction, what Willow said, that Track was thrilled to have a new brother, etc.

Does anyone remember her ever saying anything about Bristol's reaction to Trig's birth?

onething said...

"The problem with the "she did it to protect her daughter" line is that this isn't 1950 anymore."

Well, there's another problem, and that is that she has dug herself in so deep. It would be one thing if she had done this in some far off corner of the world and no fuss was ever made about it. But to complain to the press that they are misrepresenting the truth, that they are refusing to correct their stories, etc., she has compounded the lie.

I also agree with whoever said that too much time has now passed for the money negotiation to be credible. A couple of weeks, tops. I mean, if the press desperately wanted pics of Tripp and were willing to pay big bucks, and Bristol plays them against one another for the highest bidder, time is of the essence and the auction should have been over now.

AKPetMom said...

Mom of One Esq.
The look on Bristol's face at the RNC convention, while she was holding Trig, speaks volumes about how Bristol reacted to Trig.

Morgan said...

***Moderator Note***

People, just a reminder. If you have a question about someone here take it to them personally. We're discussing Sarah Palin, not other readers. Comments seeking to "out" or analyze other readers will not only go unapproved but they get the added distinction of making me grumpy. So please just cut it out.

Patrick said...

TB,

thanks for bringing up the "Nail in the coffin" picture again. It is in fact still one of the most valuable pieces of evidence which has been found so far.

I have now made a separate collection in my flickr-album just "in honour" of this picture - thanks for the inspiration.

It can be viewed here - I recommend to view it with the "slideshow" function first:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/sets/72157612980318309/

or here

http://tinyurl.com/aqmyr2

For further details, I also recommend to look at the description of the picture in flickr.

trish in SW FL said...

Tomorrow's the 27th. Tripp's 1 month "birthday"...and still no sightings or pics to be found!

Things that make ya go HMMMM!

Morgan said...

***Moderation Info***

If anyone has questions about moderation or are new and would like a brief rundown on our few basic guidelines they can email me at thetokenhippie@gmail.com

That is preferable to sending in comments debating moderation policy, which we prefer you not do.

KaJo said...

Obamacon said 1/26/09 2:14 PM "I wonder if Lori Tipton could have mistaken Willow for Bristol?"

Or for that matter, John Ziegler mistaking Willow for Bristol!

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

I just had a funny thought myself after reading Diana's "another thought today about the use of blog sites...".

Remember when Audrey and others, when first researching for circa-Feb. through April pictures of Sarah Palin, found that a lot of pictures from the official state website had been "scrubbed"?

How ironic would it be to find out someone, somewhere, had downloaded a lot of those pictures to their personal computer because they wanted a pictorial record of "the youngest female governor, the first female governor" of Alaska? And not being an actual FANATIC, they were ready to upload them again to the Internet?

If that didn't scare the bejeebers out of The Warrior Queen Gov, it surely would some of her "advisors" who are presumably a little more in touch with reality.

Littl' Me said...

Just a thought, since 'Tripp's' ' first month anniverary is coming up tomorrow:
I have heard that SP and family are planning to go on vacation (making the famine/freezing in her state HER 'Katrina' even more so...):

Does anyone know when and where they are planning to go? Maybe someone (or two or...) could just so 'happen' to pass by there and take some pics of the family? Just wondering. :)

regina said...

AKPetMom,

How Bristol reacted to baby Trig is obvious by looking at the photos of them... but the interesting thing, which Mom of One, Esq, noticed is that SP didn't make any reference to Bristol's reaction, as if she couldn't have Bristol and Trig in the same sentence.

Dangerous said...

Lots more pictures, lots more ambiguity.

In all of the photos Audrey has published as a set recently, we see a woman trying very hard to disguise her midsection -- as she admitted -- although everyone already should have known she was pregnant. So what was she disguising?

The pattern is strong evidence of an ongoing, conscious deception on SP's part. There's really on other way to see it, and it is 100% consistent with actions necessary to fake a pregnancy. What she needed is a plausible facade of pregnancy -- statements, midsection bulge, some news reports -- so nobody would ask too many questions.

What is also important to recognize from this volume of pictures is that she knew she would photographed and took steps to insure those pictures would always be inconclusive -- which they are individually. Further, the Gusty picture where she appears more pregnant was probably intended as the first in what SP expected would be a long series of photographs where she would appear more pregnant. In this context, the Gusty picture -- a couple weeks later than every other picture we have -- makes perfect sense. But that logical explanation argues for SP having another month or so to appear larger. I dare say that if Trig were born in mid-May, she would have built a significant photo history of appearing pregnant. Otherwise, the ruse would not have worked.

Some readers may see this argument as laying presumption upon presumption, but if one concludes that SP was faking the pregnancy, you can't also argue that she did not plan on having at least until mid-May to complete the ruse convincingly. Why else would she announce that time frame and leave an incomplete photo history on the record?

This evidence, IMO -- which I believe Audrey shares -- shows conclusively that Trig's arrival on or about April 17 was an unwelcome surprise.

I think it is time to put aside any speculation that Trig was born earlier, since that was mostly to allow Bristol to be Trig and Tripp's birth mother, with Tripp born when they said. Since we haven't seen Tripp or Bristol yet, the evidence points toward a far greater likelihood that the Tripp birth announcement was a ruse to buy more time for Bristol to actually give birth.

If Tripp's birth announcement was a ruse, and it can be broken, the whole thing will unravel. While I've speculated that Willow could be Trig's mother -- and that may still be the case -- if we don't see Tripp until mid-February or later, then my handicapping puts Bristol ahead once again.

Dangerous

leu2500 said...

re Little Me's mention of Palin's taking a vacation.

1) I thought SP was invited to speak at CPAC, but that's at the end of Feb and in DC

2) Since Bristol isn't a drop out, and education is sooo important to SP, then there should be no vacation until spring break the 2nd week (Anchorage schools) or 4th week (Juneau schools) of March.

Palin Pregnancy Truth said...

I haven't seen a lot of this footage but it might have been posted before.

Feel free to delete if this is a repeat post.

http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/2044054/All+Categories

http://tinyurl.com/b5lxro

And for the time she was "pregnant":

http://tinyurl.com/dyoq4k

KaJo said...

About Tripp -- IF Bristol is still PG, and IF she was Trig's birth mother -- I figure Bristol's in her 37th week this week.

1) Say -- since the majority here seem to leaning toward this -- Trig was born the WEEK of April 18th, i.e. anywhere from the 13th to the 17th, and SP just decided she'd go to Dallas anyway, she had to be there to put her name in the pot for VP.

2) Bristol turned right around and started ovulating, then got pregnant within the month.

3) Figuring the (2nd?) conception date was the week of May 11th, that would put her at 37 weeks this week, Jan. 25th through 31st.

4) If Tripp is quietly born somewhere this week or next, give the Palin/Johnstons another month to feed and fatten up the kid like they did Trig, and no one will be able to tell just HOW old he is.

(my word verification is "tootho"!)

Diana said...

Luna1580...

That is my flicker site. I have been collecting photos, videos and articles since I started following this blog. Once photos started disappearing I started saving them!

The photos of the family were in my collection. I just never put the two together until yesterday. I have too many photos to document each and every one's source. However, I don't take the date unless the source seems credible. When I can... I go back and research articles to match it.
----------------------------------
If Trig was born on April 17th or 18th...was he born at Mat-Su or Anchorage where Bristol was supposedly staying? It if was Mat-Su why would Bristol go there if she was in Anchorage? It seems Anchorage would fit a high risk pregnancy and get her away from small town gossip...or running into a neighbor. Any information on that from anyone?

Also, how do we know the Palin's are going on vacation? Is it because they need to hide from the local media. Maybe the heat has been turned up to bring Tripp out of hiding??

If I was a photographer...I would be looking for that $300,000 picture! I don't advocate stalking...but someone must have them in their sights! Don't you think!??

Now with the new pictures and information we just need to dig deeper. It is coming apart Sarah... layer by layer!

luna1580 said...

everyone-

please continue to help bring the "emmonak (and region) frozen starvation under palin's watch" story to national attention.

if you want the nation to see this woman's ability to govern, this is an immediate-result kind of way.

i'm one of the people who believes that more national media should hop on this story, as my prior comments make clear, so i have a new tactic to suggest.

go to a big paper/tv station/blog (what exactly is huffington post, in journalistic terms, anyway?) i started with the New York Times, and went on. email them thru their direct contact link, BUT ALSO TRY:

search "palin" on their site. see what reporters have covered her, in any capacity (recently preferred, not required,) and EMAIL THEM DIRECTLY, encouraging them to implore their editors to cover the story. acknowledge that they done good work covering palin in the past and mention that the LA times has already covered it (i included that story link in my emails.) http://tinyurl.com/bws2rk

most papers will give each reporter an individual email link when you click their name/bio.
-and reporters hate to be "behind the times."

everyone (especially people in the lower 48 like me,) tell the papers this is important!

thank you all,

laura in IL (yes, my name is laura).

dipsydoodlenoodle said...

tb said What do you think of this?
Its video taken on the same day as the nail in the coffin photo. Between 43 and 47 seconds in the video, SP leans back in the chair and the top of a very pregnant belly is visible. Fake belly or pregnant belly?

http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/2036132


It is about 47 seconds she leans back and you get a split second view of a "bump"; from the split second you could see it seemed to be a square bump...

LondonBridges said...

Dangerous is betting the farm on Tripp not yet having made the trip. This plays into Sarah's tentacles.

Using this narrow scenario could result in discrediting the website. How? In a month or so, Sarah holds a press conference, cites the sacredness of her family's privacy, displays pictures of Mr. Tripp and flashes his December 2008 birth certificate. Then she says, "I've been telling you pajama (with holes) clad bloggers all along: "I'm Trig's Mom!" Then she winks and says, "Game's Over!"

This above scenario could happen whether or not Tripp has already been born. At that point, the MSM will throw up its hands and make its final concession.

There are way too many clues pointing to an earlier delivery of Trig, which otherwise defy logic:
Bristol's once thought too early bump, The doctor's noting of Trig's treatment after his birth. Trig's rapid growth. Trig's big preemie weight. The significance of the importance of Sarah's Texas speech.
Even the now infamous Gusty pic would not have been staged immediately BEFORE the Texas trip had Sarah thought she had another month or 2 to get big. (Sarah surely would have had better things to do, having to get ready for her Texas trip than hang around belly flopping in the halls late that night.)

The whole key to the puzzle is the earlier birth of Trig. This is the scenario which makes Sarah nervously squirm, which doesn't rely on Tripp. Sarah knows from reading this blog that a December picture would not end this investigation unless everyone is wedded to the April 17-18 birth date of Trig.

LondonBridges said...

Sarah article:
http://tinyurl.com/dxyzea

TruthPatrol said...

I think that there is a GOP house republican winter retreat with lobbyists at a spa in Virginia this weekend, but last I checked SP is not in Congress.

LondonBridges said...

That doesn't rule out the lobbyist option! ;-)

GinaM said...

IMO Trig was born March 18th(18 cause that seems to be there favorite number). Notice Levi quit school then. SP probably found out then that BP was pregnant. Per her schedule she was in Anchorage for 2weeks mid March. Could that have been when BP gave premature birth to Trig. I think the April 18th date was due to someone maybe CBJ telling her it was time to take Trig home.

dipsydoodlenoodle said...

Also, how do we know the Palin's are going on vacation? Is it because they need to hide from the local media. Maybe the heat has been turned up to bring Tripp out of hiding??

My theory is that they are going on holiday because Tripp is due to be born or he's overdue and she'll be induced then...then suprise suprise holiday photos with baby Tripp will appear.

samper said...

This audio interview with McAllister indirectly cites this blog at about 6:30. He doesn't mention the actual name of this site, but you can definitely tell that he's talking about us! This interview is dated 1/9/09.

Don't bother with the second part of the interview unless you're interested... it just goes into Troopergate, which we aren't discussing here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZmj8Cn0RLU

GraceR said...

SP will be in DC this weekend to attend the annual Alfalfa dinner with a bunch of elite muckety-muck polticians. Not sure who invited he as she's not a member and each member can only invite 1 non-member. McCain said on a Sunday talk show last week that he'd be seeing her in a week so maybe it was him. It's kinda like a roast-thing. No press allowed. Pres. Obama will speak. It's strictly bi-partisan. However, I don't see any of her family being there and I don't see them going on vacation during the legislative season?

FishEye said...

LondonBridges@4:29AM: Thank you for that scenario. Makes a lot of sense. April 18 is not carved in stone (or even on a birth certificate).

midnightcajun said...

Dangerous said, "This evidence, IMO ...shows conclusively that Trig's arrival about April 17 was an unwelcome surprise. I think it is time to put aside any speculation that Trig was born earlier, since that was mostly to allow Bristol to be Trig and Tripp's birth mother..."

Sorry, Dangerous; I couldn't disagree more; I see no conclusive evidence that Trig was born around April 17; at this point it's all still speculation and deduction. In fact, I think a fairly convincing argument can be made for a much earlier premature birth requiring an extended hospital stay for the infant. Far from "putting aside any speculation", we need to keep all options open, and remain open to all possible scenarios. Those who wish to corner us into a narrow box would leave us vulnerable to defeat if their pet scenario should be definitively proven to be false.

For instance, what about the possibility that Bristol dropped out of school for psychological problems, and never told anyone she was pregnant before she delivered a very premature infant in February? This would explain Sarah's rushed "pregnancy," and provide an earlier due date. Many seem to doubt this infant could be kept in the hospital all those months without anyone being the wiser, but how much do we really know about the Palins' activities in those months? We do know that Sarah spent almost no time in Juneau, since the legislators took to wearing buttons that said, "Where's Sarah?"

TruthPatrol said...

I think if everyone focuses on Tripp then Trig’s real birth parents are forgotten about; smoke and mirrors SP style!

sg said...

SP launches her very own political action committee:

http://www.sarahpac.com/

Amy1 said...

I think there are a million details in this story, for which the actual reality is (I bet) slightly different than any one scenario presented here. So SP could pick one of these tiny details (upon being finally exposed in some big-time way) and very credibly say "not true, and here's the proof" -- for that one tiny detail.

The one major issue is that SHE WAS NOT PREGNANT. That is actually the only issue.

That is an issue that can't be changed, no matter what anyone's birth dates are, who the bio-Mom is, who the Dad is, what the other gazillion details are, any one of which could be true or false without changing this one essential fact, which is the exact item that SP betrayed us all on, hoaxed us on, lied to us about, used to support her "family values" and "integrity" theme on. And prob also lied to McCain et al. on.

And it's the only issue that is our legitimate business, unlike some of the other issues.

And it's impossible to refute (impossible to support that she WAS pregnant) if one looks at the array of photos for 10 seconds, verifies their authenticity (as we have done here, and as anyone can double-check to their heart's content).

One fact: she was not pregnant.

Other facts? not really relevant, in that they cannot change the main basic fact.

Amy1 said...

Not that the various scenarios are not interesting, in that they help us try to understand how this could possibly be. Not that I am not interested in them. Of course I am. Human drama. What could be more compelling?

But again, none of our business, although, unfortunately for the family members, it will all come to light eventually. Probably via SP lying about it some more, and various people connecting the dots some more.

Just like the initial outing of her daughter was supposed to support the truth of SP's own pregnancy.

It reminded me even at the time of the old "Clue" game, in which a character is supposed to say "[at the time of the murder] I was in the dining room, and here's my fork to prove it." Even at age 7, I knew that anyone could find a fork to wave around. Although, today, at an advanced age, I have a lot of trouble believing that one would wave an innocent DS baby* around. Just too much of a travesty to believe.

Wasn't it always obvious that adjusting some dates just a little makes it entirely credible that her daughter's current pregnancy has nothing whatever to do with what might have happened in the month(s) before it?

I'm just saying that truth is stranger than fiction, and I bet there's some wrinkle none of us has yet imagined, or maybe not. But it doesn't really matter: anyone looking at the array of photos cannot deny the one basic fact: SP WAS NOT PREGNANT.


__________
*Did anyone else notice that dear Trig never cried? That he often had BARE feet? Or is it just me?

Littl' Me said...

I got the 'SP going on vacation' from http://tinyurl.com/d79up4 . Tried to google it and came up empty.

TruthPatrol said...

In my opinion, if one doesn’t get down and dirty as to the why did SP fake this pregnancy then America will never know the “real” SP. In my opinion, taking the high road in this situation will only endanger this great country with one SP-gate after another; during which SP supporters will grow and become stronger.

wafflestomper said...

Gag me with a spoon!!
Sarah Palin now has a political action committee

Keep up the good work here. She is a stupid liar

regina said...

House-gate
Library-gate
Rape kit-gate
Belly-gate
Trooper-gate
Rural Alaska-gate

I can't even remember all the Palin
"gates"!

Which one will finally stop her?

Felicia said...

As an earlier commenter reported, not only has Sarah launched her own political action committee, but this is with the stated intent to run for President in 2012 and raise the necessary funds.

Insane!

Alex said...

I disagree with you on this point, Amy1 (that only the fact of Sarah's non-pregnancy truly matters here.)

As long as I've been reading this blog, I've seen wild theories spur new ideas and avenues of investigation. All because this is a safe place to raise questions and pose theories-- (thanks to the blog's code of conduct and its moderators).

All the sharing here has merit, in my opinion, because we have no idea how the truth finally will come.

sg said...

More on the upcoming travels of SP from Cindy Adams of the NY Post:

http://tinyurl.com/d3lchm

"Traveling with one of her ladies-in-waiting and invited by a rich GOPnik, she'll be at Saturday's invite-only/political mandarins-only Alfalfa Club dinner in DC. This club began back aways to honor Gen. Robert E. Lee whom, you may recall, did a little something in the Civil War. Why it exists, I don't know. What it does, I don't know. I only know it's too exclusive to include someone like me and is so high-powered that sitting US presidents attend, which means Obama should show. Anyway, Sarah will be there, and that's meaningful because this lady may only leave the frozen tundra two days a month."

Also:

"Next month she addresses a Washington gathering of prominent conservatives. She's going ahead with a book. Her Facebook page has 410,000 friends. She wants to influence policy knowing the nation must turn to Alaska as its energy resource. She's planning to be president."

Truthseeker2 said...

On another subject: I think it's time to file missing person reports for Bristol and little Tripp...

dede said...

@Gina M

Good point...
"IMO Trig was born March 18th(18 cause that seems to be there favorite number). Notice Levi quit school then. SP probably found out then that BP was pregnant. Per her schedule she was in Anchorage for 2weeks mid March. Could that have been when BP gave premature birth to Trig. I think the April 18th date was due to someone maybe CBJ telling her it was time to take Trig home."
I have always thought that Trig's birth was sometime between March 18th and the 27th" Levi quitting school, Sarah in Wasilla or Anchorage out of the public eye.
Sarah didn't need to worry about the possibility of Trig being born when she was in Texas because he was already here. She could take her time to come up with her wild ride story!

tb said...

Truth Patrol...

I totaly agree. Someone needs to take this into thier own hands, the reporters and the media are not going to help. I'm afraid of what SP might become if she is not stopped. None of this appears to slow her down at all. There are too many sheep in this world to count her out.

sandra said...

Patrick's post on the last thread didn't seem to get picked up. He posted on tinyurl.com/couwg6 a picture of the Heath family on Christmas 2007. It was taken from Kaylene Johnson's book.

In this picture Bristol does not appear to be pregnant. This makes me wonder if Bristol was gone during 2008 for other reasons.

sandra in oregon

Betsy S said...

Alex is so right--this is indeed a blog of control and moderation--many thanks again, Audrey, Morgan et al.
Let's see where we all agree: Trig was not born on April 18th--that photo with SP's mom and dad is not a newborn. The pix with Mercede and Bristol is younger.
SP was not pregnant with this baby, and she did not
hasten back from Texas to give birth.
Bristol, out of school for months, is probably the mother of Trig.
SP launched a campaign of isolated and inconsistent fake pregnancy photo ops, but Trig was born (a decent full term weight for a teenager's first birth) before he was expected. Dates might have been wrong.
He was sequestered in a hospital somewhere (jaundice?) until SP returned from Texas. One can just imagine the pleasure of inventing this dramatic escapade.
So SP could go back to work in three days with Trig,
something one could never do with a "premie" Down Syndrome baby--he was probably three or three and a half weeks old by then.
Bristol was probably breast feeding him, hence the
huge bosom and the padded dress. Her maternal beauty in caring for Trig at all those
campaign stops is palpably evident. SP held him like sack of oranges.
GOP or McCain's staff, in order to squelch the
"Bristol is Trig's mom" rumors, devised a new pregnancy scenario for her, most likely a Karl Rove-type crazy idea.
There is no Tripp. Wasn't ever, certainly not born
Dec 18 or Dec 27 or Dec 28. People Mag jumped the gun, probably leaping at a fraudulent "Auntie" phone call.
Smoke and mirrors SP is opening up her PAC for her future political ambition and praying we'll all forget about the rest.
Are we together so far? Help me out here.
Ziegler probably thought Willow was Bristol.....

B said...

Betsy S,

I appreciate your summary and agree with most of it. But we don't all agree that Trig was born before April 18. At least Dangerous and I still think he could have been born then or a day or so before.

Has anyone analyzed the photo at MatSu with the Heaths to explain why Trig couldn't be 1-3 days old, or why he must be older than in the photo with Sadie? I missed it.

Today marks one mmonth with no proof of Tripp. As Audrey said, what a farce.

Patrick said...

Hi Sandra in Oregon,

thanks for mentioning the 2007 Christmas picture again which has been published in Kaylene Johnston's "official" biography of Sarah Palin.

Link:
tinyurl.com/couwg6

I would be extremely careful to draw final conclusions from this picture. There are too many open questions connected with it. For example:

- Why is it the only picture available with Bristol between September 2007 and end of April 2008?
- Why was it just published in such an incredibly bad print quality in this book, and never anywhere else in a higher-resolution?

I don't think that one can definitely say that Bristol looks not pregnant here. Here belly is partly obscured by Willow who stands in front of her. In is impossible IMO to come to a definite conclusion.

We also have no information whatsoever whether this picture was modified or not. The contrast in this printed version is incredibly bad. It's very difficult to make out details here.

It's very important to keep an open mind, and we don't want to interpret pictures in a way that it fits to a certain theory. We want to find the truth. That's why I posted the picture, because it's out there and should be looked at (and maybe someone has seen it somewhere else in a higher resolution and remembers it).

However, I don't think that it proves or disproves anything, it only raises more questions.

And somehow I am starting to feel compelled to walk in Cicero's footsteps ("Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam...") and end each of my posts with the words:

WHERE IS TRIPP? WHERE IS BRISTOL?
;-)

jeanie said...

Betsy S - Nice post! You summed it up very well.

momom - Interesting website. I got a little illicit thrill out of visiting a site that clearly states at the top: Conservative Christians ONLY. Liberals, Athiests Not Welcomed.

Patrick - Good quotation. I always learn interesting things on here, and now I can add a bit of Latin/Roman history to that!

onething said...

Ha, ha, Betsy S,

Enjoyed your post and it was quite good but, NO Tripp at all? What were they supposed to do if they got elected? Thumb their noses at the populace and say, "Gotcha!"? And will the MSM let Palin run for Pres with a 4-year-old mystery grandson that no one has seen?

Actually the pics of Bristol, unlike those of Sarah, actually appear pregnant. I mean, for example, the one of her going into what looks like a very small local store in Wasilla this fall wearing a red shirt, white under T shirt, and a jacket.

She could just be doing a better job of faking, but good lord, what's the plan?

Ya gotta love the Palins!

Alex said...

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will.)

The first known photo of Trig is at Mat-Su in the arms of the Heaths. Right? (This is the photo that most of us don't believe is the face of a newborn.)

OK-- now consider this. When a pregnant woman goes into labor, her husband (or friend etc) phones everybody close and alerts them that the birth is imminent. Some family members even come to the hospital to wait it out.

But if you're faking a pregnancy, how do you get around this? You can't call folks and say "The baby's on his way!" Because they might rush to the hospital. So you have to concoct a story that will get you off the hook for not phoning folks in advance to let them know that the birth is coming.

Texas filled the bill for Sarah. Whether or not Trig was born April 18, she could use the Wild Ride story to make excuses to her parents on why they didn't get that "He's Coming!" call in the middle of the night.

The Heaths show up later in the morning, and the charade begins. A non-newborn Trig is put in their arms and they never question anything, because they're just glad Sarah made it home safely to deliver.

Or they're in on it. Which I can't believe.

Just a thought.

luna1580 said...

to everyone who thinks trig was born before april 18, 2008, i respectfully disagree.

anything is possible, but i firmly believe there are a limited amount of reasons SP would have ever taken the wild ride:

1* she really was pregnant, and she and todd were desperate to have the baby born on alaskan soil (due to their successionist/alaskan independence party ties). this does not explain why she bypassed anchorage hospitals to reach mat-su regional.

2* she was not pregnant, and someone else was giving birth to trig at mat-su regional, she had to be there to take the baby home.

3* she was not pregnant, but someone she cared about was. there was some kind of complication with that mother or the new baby and she feared one or both could die, she had to be there because she either has a heart after all, or she couldn't imagine faking a miscarriage/explaining the birth-mom's death if the worst should happen.

4* the baby was already born, but had some unexpected serious health condition and she had to get to mat-su regional for the reasons stated in the idea above.

so i guess the last one could be true and trig is older, but i don't see it as more likely than the other options.

remember that even audrey says on her original, pre-blog webpage that it was the craziness of the wild ride that attracted her attention to the whole story, finding evidence supporting non-pregnancy came after. i am in the same boat -if i hadn't heard the wild ride story i wouldn't have given the fake-pregnancy idea another thought.

so taking (and announcing) the wild ride if the baby was already born is the very height of stupidity!

if he was born, and just hanging out peacefully with her family while she was in texas, she would have introduced him to the world in some other fashion, with some birth story that didn't make her sound criminally negligent!

i think she's a bit dim, but she seems to have cunning. i don't think she would have rushed to mat-su like a mad woman unless one of the scenarios i detailed above were in play. in my mind options 2 & 3 are the most likely BY FAR. option 1, followed by 4 in last place are how they rank in my mind.

Sarah in SC said...

*Did anyone else notice that dear Trig never cried? That he often had BARE feet? Or is it just me?


Oh, my gosh. I am so glad someone else finally said this! I thought I was the only one who thought this was not only terribly strange, but totally CRAZY. Who doesn't put socks on a baby's feet when they're going to be flying around in cold airplanes, drug out on tarmacs in the wind, and toted around in all kinds of weather?? Frankly, I attributed it to a teenage mother not knowing better--and I don't mean that ALL teenage mothers wouldn't know better, but smarts don't seem to run rampant in the elder or teenaged Palins.

Of course, they never put a hat on the poor little guy, either.

Drove me NUTS.

Thank you for letting me know I'm not the only one.

Punkinbugg said...

Is it just me?

Or is all the media attention given the octuplets born on Monday in California just as ironic as all get-out?

I mean, really. At least three doctors are interviewed, there's a picture of the entire staff, the stats for each child is announced, and not once is the word HIPAA mentioned.

Oh and where's Trigg?

Don G. said...

No kiddin the Christmas picture is poor quality! Why would anyone take a picture such as that and what kind of ancient box camera would they have had to have used. Everytime we see something like that it should only reassure us that there's something dishonest going on in Palin world.

But the picture may be a good one to give to an expert on photography to find out what they had to do to the picture to make it so bad. And what kind of alterations took place?

dipsydoodlenoodle said...

Patrick's post on the last thread didn't seem to get picked up. He posted on tinyurl.com/couwg6 a picture of the Heath family on Christmas 2007. It was taken from Kaylene Johnson's book.

In this picture Bristol does not appear to be pregnant. This makes me wonder if Bristol was gone during 2008 for other reasons.


Which one is Bristol on the photo? Sorry its a stupid question but the photo is poor quality that I can't tell :-(

dipsydoodlenoodle said...

In regards to my last post (confirming which is Bristol on the December 2007 photo); if the girl I think is Bristol, is actually Bristol then I think you can see a belly; however it's far too hard to tell because of the belly being obscured and poor quality.

Another thing is you can't actually see Sarah's belly to see if she has a "Trig" bump or not.

wrisky said...

Now what is preventing the Palinbabygate story from cracking wide open like a rotten melon ?
....hmmm ?

I suppose McCain et al had to have been in the loop, he wasn't that senile. John could probably kiss that reelection goodbye when some mud splashes on him when the story breaks and the dots start getting connected. The reputations of a bunch of his campaign staff go in the toilet too. So there might be a considerable amount of chits being cashed in behind the scenes. It looks like they ran out of time on this one though, too much evidence of shenanigans, too many enquiring minds.

Besides who doesn't secretly savor these mysteriously smutty bits of schadenfreude ?

James said...

Re: poster "Palin Pregnancy Truth" - who posted this very valuable link to a bunch of Alaskan local news videos, most within week's of Trig's birth:

http://tinyurl.com/dyoq4k

This link seems to have been glossed over, and wow - go look at all these videos ASAP!


1) What is the DEAL with Sarah Palin ALWAYS wearing a winter coat indoors? Is there, like, no heating system in the Alaska governor's office? It is very bizarre, especially the pink coat with the black furred collar in this: "Gov. Palin wants Alaska to get off the couch"

2) Look at these videos:
Gov. Palin vetoes 2/3 of capital budget projects (Dated 4/6/08) and
Gov. Palin holds press conference (Dated 4/408) and
Gov. Palin wants explanations before handing over funds" (Dated 3/21/08)

Can anyone look at this woman - SP - speaking, and honestly say to themselves:
"Yep, that sure looks like woman who's 8 months pregnant and about to have a baby in 2-4 weeks"

Because I sure can't. Her face and chin look as toned as it did on the campaign trail. Her chest shows no signs of increased breast size.

The other weird thing, is that the birth announcement video report claims that "Trig was born at 6:30AM this morning" - and that video is dated 4/20/08!

So which IS the correct date they told people that Trig was born??

The rats just keep getting smellier by the minute...

PS - Sarah might have her ducks lined up on Facebook, but her detractors aren't sitting ildly by in the meantime:

1,000,000 Strong Against Sarah Palin

Paula said...

It is not uncommon for a 17 year old to have a child. I have always found it odd that they covered up Bristol's pregnancy in the first place. But SP's political career is based on her ultra conservative abstinence only platform. Therefore it makes sense that they covered it up. When the rumors began circulating early September, there were several possibilities. If she could have produced the birth certificate to prove she was Trig's mother it would have ended the rumors and Bristol would not have been involved. Well that was impossible. She could have admitted the cover-up, but there were several factors involved. First, it would have been damaging to her abstinence only platform. Second, she would have been admitting to repeatedly lying and deceiving millions of people. She wore the fake belly, gave interviews to newspapers, attended a baby shower in her honor, etc. It wasn't just one lie, it was a lie that begot more and more lies which would have continued had she not been caught. If she wanted to protect her daughter, she'd have dropped out of the Presidential race. She could have claimed that accepting the nomination was a bad decision because with a DS infant she just doesn't have the time. That would have been the end of it. That would have been the noble thing to do IF she wanted to protect her daughter. The only thing SP wants to protect is her career. Bristol had to hide her first pregnancy to save her mother's political career, and then had to fake a second one for the same reason. There is no evidence of Bristol's pregnancy with Tripp or of his existence.

LondonBridges said...

If only she could have afforded airfare, this would not have spontaneously happened!

Associated Press
Last updated: 9:35 p.m., Tuesday, January 27, 2009

DENVER -- There wasn't time to look up any books on obstetrics before a woman gave birth in the Denver Public Library.


Library spokeswoman Celeste Jackson said the woman walked into the library Tuesday, said she had been riding a city bus and was in labor.

She gave birth just inside the library entrance.

Staffers and security guards helped until paramedics arrived and took the mother and newborn girl to Denver Health Medical Center.

Jackson said staffers didn't yet know their names but they want to send flowers. She says, "It's never happened before."

Hospital spokeswoman Betty Rueda said the mother was in good condition Tuesday evening. She declined to release information on the baby, citing privacy rules.

Alex said...

@Luna

As I understand it, it was Chuck Heath who broke The Wild Ride Story to the press. Then they turned to Sarah, who had to corroborate it. That's what prompted my scenario above. That the Wild Ride story was just meant to make excuses to the Heaths about why they werent called before Trig was born, and then like all lies, it found its way out to the Fresh Air of Reason.

Like you I'd always wondered why such an elaborate lie. What would be the purpose of drawing attention to such irresponsible behavior?

1. You like promoting Tales of Strength about yourself

2. YOu just love a Good Story and love exaggerating.

2. It served a purpose in the overall scheme that that We don't know about

3. It drew attention away from something else.

Otherwise, you're right. Why not keep it all quiet????

penny in paradise said...

Go James!

The video, "Gov. Palin vetoes 2/3 of capital budget projects" (Dated 4/6/08) Is another BIG NAIL! Look how close to the table she is sitting. This was April 6, 2008, seven days before the Gusty photos and 12 days before delivery...NOT!

OT, but I am in the Trig was born earlier camp. The photos of Mercedes with Triggy-bear are of a newborn Trig, not the same age as the Trig we saw in the Heath's photo, or the Trig the Palins took to work on April 21, 2008. We may not be able to date Mercedes' photos, but those photos are of when he was very new, and I'm thinking, before Sarah realized she better be more careful of photographic evidence.

Penny

dipsydoodlenoodle said...

Punkinbugg Is it just me?

Or is all the media attention given the octuplets born on Monday in California just as ironic as all get-out?

I mean, really. At least three doctors are interviewed, there's a picture of the entire staff, the stats for each child is announced, and not once is the word HIPAA mentioned.

Oh and where's Trigg?


I tell you what I'm in England, UK and I've heard more about the 8 babies since Monday than we've ever heard about SP. I think the only thing we had on TV was something very brief about spending money on clothes and that was it. The papers yesterday all had stats for the babies as well.

Morgan said...

Just to clear up any confusion about he Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), information on patients can be released if the patients and/or parent/guardians allow it.

The reason information on the eight babies has been so prominent in the news is because the parents, private citizens, signed a release allowing the public information and details of the births.

The reason the details of Trig's birth remain a mystery is because their mother, a public figure, refuses to do it.

Dangerous said...

Thanks to those posters who answered some other posts that continue to speculate that Trig was born earlier than April 17-18. This topic continues to elicit lots of comments, as it has become a sacred-cow assertion for many of the posts I've read. It is a fatally flawed conclusion, however.

If Trig was born much earlier than April 17-18, one has to explain why Bristol (and Willow, who is still a suspect) would attend an indoor luncheon on Feb. 15 when a late-term pregnancy would be impossible to hide.

Some have speculated that Trig was very premature, to account for his small appearance on April 18, and so that Bristol could be in public in February. However, a lengthy post-natal hospital stay for Trig causes massive secrecy problems for the entire adventure, and doesn't explain why SP would bolt from her meeting in Texas just to claim Trig on April 18. The circumstances simply do not align.

It is true that a Tripp birth certificate from Dec. 27, reveal any time, would crush remaining speculation about Bristol's parentage of Trig, except for those who refuse to accept the evidence -- direct and circumstantial -- that Trig arrived unexpectedly on or about April 17-18. If SP did release that birth certificate, I would not be stymied because Willow would become the prime candidate for Trig's mother. I've asserted that, lacking any direct evidence that Tripp was born when they say, we can't accept their statements without question since those statements are unsupported hearsay.

If SP faked the pregnancy, she must have had a reasonable belief that she could pull off the ruse. That reasonable belief must have included the expectation to continue faking the pregnancy until mid-May, since that when she said we could expect a baby. It makes no sense to fake a pregnancy, announce a due date in mid-May, then mess up her own scheme by choosing to produce the baby a month early.

Some posters have recognized this contradiction and proposed that some other event required SP to dash back to Alaska to claim Trig, upsetting the apple-cart, so to speak. These scenarios still run into the problem of maintaining a secret birth for weeks on end, while not having a better story prepared for SP leaving Texas to deliver an infant in Alaska. If the secret of Trig's existence was that fragile, could they have expected it to survive a 12+ hour trip back to Alaska?

Dangerous

Punkinbugg said...

Ironic that a little couple in So. Cal. recognizes that their event is newsworthy and allows their doctors to speak to the media.

Ironic that a sitting governor with a degree in journalism having a baby in office doesn't think her story is newsworthy enough to allow her doctors and hospital to speak, too.

That is, if it really happened.

luna1580 said...

jocuralex-

i agree that SP loves her some self-promotion and ballsy, pioneer-type imagery. i also agree that she may not have intended to tell the story the way she did until the reporter (i think lori tipton) called her on it in the ADN interview. in the audio she obviously HATES giving straight answers about it, the reporter even reminds her (paraphrased) "well, i'm asking because i heard your father say your water broke in texas, i heard him myself."

i could buy that the story took on a life of its own, but i still think SOMETHING really did happen at mat-su regional at that time that made her return from TX the way she did.

it raises another point for me too, how dumb -as in genuinely of low intellect- is SP?

was there ever a point where she really believed the wild ride showed her "toughness?" (i think teamsarah has some statement that compares it to hard working dark-ages peasants giving birth practically while tilling the fields, rubbish i say, that made them unfortunate, not "strong"!)

because if she really did think it sounded like she was tough and smart, that reveals how truly, deeply ignorant she was of the health risks to her DS, advanced maternal age, child (as has been discussed ad nauseam on other threads.) and that makes me sad and frightens me.

how anyone who claims to "read all of" the newspapers and magazines (lol, snort!) and promotes her image of "a blackberry in each hand" could care so little about her baby that she wouldn't even google his health condition, or ask a specialist doctor more about it is sickening. that she'd do it while promoting herself as the new messiah of the EXTREME pro-life movement is utterly unacceptable in a human, let alone one with great political aspirations.

like morgan said a long way back, the woman suffers from "delusions of adequacy!"

luna1580 said...

alex, sorry your name is wonky in my reply.

it happens when i start typing the veri-word and the screen hasn't finished refreshing, the cursor jumps back up, or something. sorry.

Don G. said...

More speculation and it's only that so don't take this to the bank:

Bristol goes missing for months.

Lots of people in Alaska think they know that Bristol is missing because she's pregnant.

Palin does her wild ride.

Bristol has a baby.

Sarah claims the baby as her own.

The Palins concoct a story of Bristol being pregnant during the election campaign because sooner or later Bristol is going to have to be seen with her baby 'Trigg'.

Bristol disappears again because she isn't pregnant.

A story is produced saying that Bristol has had her baby around Dec. 27.

No Tripp Palin.

End of the ugly story.

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

Can anyone give any evidence why that one doesn't work?

midnightcajun said...

When one sees how well Trigg's existence (or lack thereof) is being "hidden," one realizes how easily a premature Trig's lengthy stay in a neonatal unit in Anchorage could have been kept quiet. No one had any reason to think the baby was there. If someone saw Bristol or Sarah at the hospital, they could simply have said they were visiting a sick friend or relative. Remember, in those pre-VP days Sarah was not followed by a horde of press people.

One of my cousins had a very premature infant last year. I only knew because I was told. They went to the hospital every day; did I see them? No. And this was my COUSIN.

The point has been made before that we only know the Wild Ride because Sarah chose to tell it. Even if the story were true, Sarah is perfectly capable of lying. She told the WR story because she thought it reflected well on her and made her look tough. Part of it, I suspect, could have been concocted for the Heaths (who seem to have big mouths and are doubtless therefore out of the loop), but she could have laughed and said her dad misunderstood if she'd wanted to.

I also can see Sarah deliberately saying the child would be due in May when she was planning on "having it" in April. One less month to fake being pregnant and not looking like a beauty queen.

That said, I actually am in the camp of those who believe Bristol is now pregnant but has not yet had her second child. But I do think one should keep an open mind. The true scenario could actually be something we have yet to hit upon.

LondonBridges said...

Dangerous:

It simple. The birth child' birth name could have been John Johnston. A couple of weeks in an incubator with a few visits by its disguised mother would not have been a big deal. Neither would a couple of after hours outpatient clinic visits to Sarah's doctor friend's office. The nature of the doctor's practice likely routinely involves arranging clandestine anonymous patient visits.

Sarah's plan was probably always to "rush back" on the 17th. She did not want to attend a formal dinner where her Sponge Bob pads would be under close scrutiny. However, she did not want to pass up giving that speech in Texas. Don't forget: the wild ride was not televised like OJ's. No one knew about it until the next day.

The clock was ticking. Trig was getting older, starting to smoke cigars after his nursing sessions, so his public announcement and Sarah's fake birth could be delayed no longer. Conditions would be "perfect" by secretly going to the hospital in the middle of the night (going from Texas would even hide the activity from co-workers and neighbors.) and faking the birth process when no one suspected it and few workers were in the hospital.

Giving "birth" to DS Trig before the Texas speech and then abandoning him to go to Texas for political purposes or taking a newborn to Texas would be socially and morally unacceptable. Thus, she has no choice: the cards were on the table. Canceling the Texas speech or waiting any longer to reveal Trig, were not options.

Mom of One, Esq. said...

"The video, "Gov. Palin vetoes 2/3 of capital budget projects" (Dated 4/6/08) Is another BIG NAIL! Look how close to the table she is sitting. This was April 6, 2008, seven days before the Gusty photos and 12 days before delivery...NOT!"

And look how she is leaning forward at the end of the video! NO WAY! I hope someone is saving these videos.

I searched for January and February videos but nothing really good there.

Interesting though that SP signed a Safe Haven law into effect in February 2008!

KaJo said...

from the link James posted in his comments 1/28/09 3:25 AM [what are you doing up at that hour, James?? :) ], I got some pretty good screen captures. I'm going to post them up on my Photobucket page...

http://s406.photobucket.com/albums/pp141/WestCorrespondent/Sarah%20Palin/

...as soon as I do a little lightening/brightening examination.

I agree, NONE of them seem to show a 7-month pregnant belly that SHOULD show pretty obviously on such a slightly built woman.

KaJo said...

This is mostly in response to some of the points Dangerous made in the post @ 1/28/09 8:59 AM.

I'm still not buying into the Willow-as-Trig's-mother theory, because the original rumors that were circulating in Alaska during the early 2007 legislative session were about BRISTOL (the rumors that put the lie to Sarah Palin's claims that the MSM picked up on "pathetic liberal bloggers" spreading the rumor).

I'm of the opinion that Sarah Palin performed some identity sleight-of-hand regarding that luncheon on Feb. 15, 2008 where it is said (remember, this is also hearsay) that all 3 of her daughters showed up, albeit without invitation. In the scramble to accommodate them, there's a good chance no one looked closely at the older girls -- of course, Piper would have been unmistakable. Sure would be nice if a picture of the event surfaced...

I don't think Trig was THAT premature, so as to have been born before the Feb. 15th luncheon. I believe he was born either very late in February 2008 or very early in March 2008. And I do believe that he was very likely born with the assistance of a midwife or Dr. CB-J in a clinic or home setting. If Dr. CB-J was involved that closely, I believe that she could have arranged for home phototherapy and a pediatric oxygen tent setup and nursing attendants with the particular qualifications Sarah Palin would require... :) -- loyalty to her as a fellow member of that Assembly of God sect, family friend, etc. (Google "oxygen tent for sale" -- many sale/rental listings)

More speculation about something someone has brought up: Possibly the reason no one has seen Trig cry in the videos we've seen when he was lugged around during the campaign MAY BE because he's deaf (Google "deafness in Down Syndrome children").

http://www.ds-health.com/abst/a0112.htm

I've also been wondering if Trig has already shown signs of strabismus ("lazy eye", i.e., crosseyed-ness) -- one reason why the poor baby is already wearing glasses -- and I'll bet they stay on his face about 10 minutes of his waking hours. Hard to believe Sarah Palin has time to deal with minutiae like that.

Lastly, I believe that the sole reason the "wild ride" came about, with its hastily-cobbled-together sequence of events narrated by Sarah Palin and her (unwitting?) father, is because Bristol was getting restless to the point of bolting from whatever hideaway she was sequestered in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but usually a rebellious teenager will be able to "do her own thing" if she's determined enough, but not if an even more determined autocratic mother is on hand to control her. Thus, Sarah Palin had to get back to Wasilla pronto.

And you see an outwardly cooperative Bristol being showcased during the RNC and campaign thereafter. One really has to wonder what the "hold" on the poor girl was...?

Shelby said...

I think the 'hold' that Sarah has on Bristol is that Trig really is Bristol's son. And as his mother Bristol is acutely aware that she is the only one who can really giving Trig the love and affection he desperately needs. It is definitely not coming from Sarah. I also wouldn't assume that Sarah is perceived as 'evil' to her kids. When one is raised with dysfunction that is what one perceives as normal. Sarah in her crazy, narcissist, selfish, pathological way does seem to love her kids. Bristol probably was convinced by Sarah (or others) that giving up Trig was the best thing for all involved.

I'm also pretty sure Sarah has the "it's us against the evil world" shtick down pat with her family and kids. I don’t know that Bristol would have anywhere to ‘run’ to. She probably loves her family and even her crazy Mom and really doesn’t want to expose them to ruin.

I'm also pretty convinced that everything Sarah has done regarding Bristol and Trig she did with the pretense of 'protecting' Bristol and somehow was able to get Bristol to believe it too.

In fact I could almost buy into that argument myself except for the irrefutable fact that she did a most unconscionably evil thing for a mother to do to her young unwed pregnant teenage daughter which was to expose her in front of the world and use her as an 'excuse' as to why she (Palin) had to be the mother of Trig and not Bristol.

That action alone convinced me that Palin is 100% full of crap and a big-fat liar to boot. If she (Palin) were Trig’s real birth mother there were many, many ways to prove that didn't even have Bristol's name in the answer.

I'm also on the opinion that Trig was born earlier than 4/18/08. I believe that because he is a DS baby and therefore would require at least a few days of observation and post-natal care. (My understanding is that most DS babies spend about 2 weeks in the hospital.) And when tied in with that zinger in CBJ's report - 'no significant congenital heart disease' I just wonder how someone downgraded heart problems from significant to whatever is below significant. I would assume that some testing following Trig’s birth was conducted to assure that was the correct assessment.

And who knows. There may very well have been good intentions in this story at the beginning.

The problem is that lies beget lies and when one tells lies and then wants to be VPOTUS or even – horrors! - POTUS there are ramifications.

Sarah should cut her losses NOW and come clean with the truth.

It will not go away. The truth is more and more obvious every day with more pictures coming to light and the weak story being examined logically by more and more people. As someone else said and I completely agree, it is what ISN’T there that creates the most suspicion, not what is.

If Sarah wants to stay on the scene she needs to tell the truth herself before the truth is exposed without her. At that point she will be scrambling to explain why she thought it was okay to perpetuate a lie that didn't need to be a lie in the first place. (Unless there is fraud involved, which is a whole other story and even more reason to make Sarah Palin accountable for her lies.) She is on borrowed time right now.

So by all means, keep this blog going. I admit I was skeptical myself at first. I still have trouble reconciling to what extent Palin went to perpetuate this fraud. The Gutsy pictures are very troubling. But based on everything Audrey has documented and based on what Palin has NOT done to put this story to rest and also knowing for a fact that it really bothers Palin that this (and other) blogs exists, I have absolutely no doubt that this story has teeth. The truth is the truth. Either Sarah Palin lied or she didn’t. It’s pretty simple to me. I see a ton of evidence that she did and absolutely none that she didn’t.

Dee said...

I've been doing a little reading on adoption in Alaska, because I continue to be puzzle about Trig's legal status. I am convinced that Palin is not Trig's birthmother. Bristol appears to be the most likely candidate for birthmother, but I am not ruling someone else out. The question remains, has Trig been legally adopted by Sara?

If Trig had been adopted, it was most likely a private adoption. In a private adoption, the birth mother legally signs over the parental rights to the adopting parent(s). An agency does not need to be an involved, but an Attorney does. However, even a private adoption requires a home study be done by a state social worker. Which brings up the question, how could somebody approve Sara as fit to adopt if she was crazy enough to fake a pregnancy? Either they thought this made her appear even more wonderful, the adoption was approved before she started faking the pregnancy and the social worker was afraid to come forward or most likely, she was willing to OK the adoption because Sara is the governor. No matter the case, it is very likely that some sort of fraud or irregularites happened if Sara had indeed legally adopted Trig.

The other possiblity is that Trig has not been legally adopted. This raises another question. Is Sara fraudently presenting herself as birthmother to her insurance? That seems hard to believe because in order for that to occur, some medical professional would have to supply phoney records to prove that she had given birth to the baby. Even if they claimed a home birth, there would still need to be records of pre and post partum treatment. Could Sara be committing additional illegal acts by using her power as governor to get medical expenses for Trig approved?

If Bristol is the birthmother and still the legal mother, then it is possible that the insurance is covering Trig because Bristol is still covered as a dependent. This seems the most likely scenerio, as the providers would not have to know that Bristol is the mother, only the insurance company would know that. This may also explain why Sara was so eager for the media to know that Bristol was still in highschool and why there appears to be no wedding date, because under this sceniro Trig would loose his medical coverage if Bristol losses her dependent status.

It is also possible that Trig is not insured which would be very exspensive or that he is covered under the insurance of his birthmother who is not Bristol. Under this scenerio, the birthmother might simply have granted Sara the legal right to authorize medical treatment. There also might be some temporary agreement to allow Sara to legally care for Trig short of adoption, but I have not researched the legal possiblites of that.

http://articles.directorym.com/Adoption_Alaska-r852312-Alaska.html#8055328

Laura said...

Having had a lot of experience in an NICU, I find it practically unfathomable that someone could be anonymous in there. They can change a name on a crib tag, but someone always whispers, someone always tells. I wouldn't pursue this line of thought.

I know of a doctor who said, "That baby is drugged!" about his lack of response to the lights and noise at the RNC. It struck many people as odd.

Also odd: a photo of SP and BP shopping for something in what appears to be a big box store. SP is holding Trig, struggling to hold him. What is with these people? Don't they own a stroller or a car seat? Are these "moments" the only time she sees or holds him? I get the whole thing about carrying him off a plane b/c of the great photo op and the drama of it (who ever does that?) But really, WHO goes from a car to the far reaches of a huge store holding a 9-month old? It's all so darn ODD! I think she is truly, honest-to-God incapable and disconnected from being a mother. And so capable of saying anything at all to further her career.

Finally, don't forget the key thing that the Tx governor said about her fleeing the stage so precipitously after her speech. He is quoted as saying something like, "wow, is the baby coming?" or something like that. I always took it to mean either she felt a real gush (which then makes the rest of her story even more crazy) or she got a text on her ubiquitous Blackberry saying that BP was in labor.
L.A. in S.F.

luna1580 said...

i just want to point out that many people now seem very devoted to the "trig was born MONTHS in advance of april 18th" story.

and pretty much NO ONE was wedded solidly to this idea until tripp's "announced birthdate" of december 27th suddenly took bristol out of the running to be both mothers.

then, suddenly, a WAY bigger conspiracy theory of "secret baby with demanding medical needs hidden for months" developed to keep the original bristol theory alive, even though it is not the simplest explanation or the one supported by the most facts. this kind of rationalization is typical of "crazy" conspiracy theories, just remember that. i am NOT implying anyone here is crazy, far from it. simply that we need to remember that very little about the whole palin pregnancy saga is "proven" in any way.

what do we know?

*trig was certainly born no LATER than april 18th.

*sarah did indeed take the wild ride, her true reasons for returning to mat-su are unclear. her stated reason was to give birth.

*tripp was supposedly born one month ago, but we have no proof of this, he may not yet be born, he may be a phantom child, or he may indeed be currently one month old.

*some of us feel trig looks older than a newborn in one picture with the heaths. some of us feel he looks younger in the pic with mercede, which remains undated.

-that's what we know, all the rest is speculation and gut feelings.

so when we say we haven't made up our minds yet let's mean it. all the speculations are good brain-storming, but none of them are "the truth," yet.

Diana said...

I find it interesting that Providence Hospital in Anchorage...the one with the great neo natal facility that Sarah visted in Aug.2008...has eliminated from their website any news or press releases from March 16th 2008 on. They have 2009
with plenty of news and press releases and events for Jan. And they have plenty before March 16th 2008. Then they just stop right there...March 16th. Nothing until Jan. 2009.

I wonder what happend??? :) Maybe we need to look a little closer at Anchorage hospital for where Trig was born and what date??

I still feel the 18th is a day that they must really like. Bristols BD is on 10-18. Trigs original BD was May 18...Trig was supposedly born April 18th. Maybe it was really March 18th???

Tripp's original BD was Dec. 18...maybe really Feb.18 or March 18???

Did I ask yet...WHERE'S TRIPP???

I'm just saying....Track, Trig, Tripp. 18.18.18.18,18. They just have a way of repeating things. Just something to throw out and and think about!

fifitrixiebelle said...

The February 15th luncheon -

Janet Bartels the organiser and the person who made the comment about the three girls attendance is a Republican party contributer and so is her husband Thomas.

hmmmmmmm?

Sheesh said...

Luna,

Actually we DON'T know that the wild ride is actually true. We just know what she purports as to transpired.

I think at this point people are coming forth with some fairly wild speculations because we've hit some dead ends and all we have are speculations and pictures.

I'll be the first to admit that the pictures are so variable as to size and shape of the pregnant belly (and that 'square' one really makes no sense at all) that there's enough there to give me reason to doubt a pregnancy existed.

I've said before and I'll say again that regardless of whether or not SP was pregnant, the fact that she's put forth this absurd story of the wild ride paints her into a corner. The wild ride story is far more damaging that faking a pregnancy IMHO. So for me, if she was pregnant and the wild ride story is what took place she has clearly demonstrated a complete disregard for the safety of her unborn child for completely idiotic reasons. And should it turn out that the pregnancy was faked she just comes off as a complete looney and liar.

So Sarah...if you're reading this....you really didnt think this one through very well, did you? You can set-up your PAC and work towards 2012 but this story will haunt you for the next 4 years and the truth WILL come out. My advise? Work on getting a show on Fox.

Sheesh

Dangerous said...

If SP faked the pregnancy for one of the girls, there's no way it would work unless the entire family went along with the ruse. Any rebellious-Bristol speculation is nonsense. If she were not committed to having Trig be a 'family' child, SP would never be inclined to fake it just to cover her own image. She would have to conclude that Bristol or someone else would spill it.

On other subject, the famous Bristol-in-green-with-a-baby-bump picture is from 2006, not 2007. Audrey has shown that conclusively. Further, Willow is clearly younger in that picture than the AK inauguration photo of Dec 4, 2006. It's a dead end, people.

There's no direct confirmable evidence that either Bristol or Willow was pregnant in early 2008. Of course, there's no direct, confirmable, evidence that SP was pregnant either. There were rumors about Bristol being pregnant, probably derived from her suddenly changing schools. The rumors of months of 'mono' have been debunked. (That was just random chatter on various web boards at the time.)

So what we want is either direct evidence that Bristol or Willow were NOT pregnant in the time period. If we had proof of Tripp's birth as reported, we could infer that Bristol was not Trig's mother, assuming he was born mid-April. The circumstantial evidence all but confirms that fact. As Luna points out, we should keep our minds open and any conclusions we reach are subject to new, confirmable evidence, whether convenient for our pet theories or not.

Dangerous

Don G. said...

Blogger Shelby said...
I think the 'hold' that Sarah has on Bristol is that Trig really is Bristol's son.
-----------------------------
Right on Shelby! And that also explains why another pregnancy needed to be created. S. Palin knew that some time in the future her daughter Bristol would need to be seen as a mother. And she will be, but now the supposed baby of Dec. 28 will sometime in the future have to become her real baby. Trigg of course.

I don't expect people to sign on to this theory but I like to play devil's advocate and hear a solid argument against it not being true. I think it explains everything in perhaps the only way everything can be explained.

Don G. said...

Further to what Luna said, I'm also speculating the fast approaching time when Bristol gets married to Levi and they start living together with a baby. Trigg of course. (I speculate) And then how they are not going to be able to let anyone see their baby because their baby is identifiable.

or

They don't get married, bristol stays in the family house and never takes her baby outside for people to see.

or

Bristol and Levi get married and go live somewhere else with no baby.

Sarah's toast and it's just a matter of time.

FishEye said...

On a train trip last fall, I struck up a conversation with my seat mate, a young woman only a couple of years older than Bristol. Finding ourselves on the same page politically, we spent as much time discussing Bristol as Sarah, and we agreed that Bristol looks so lost and sad because she is keeping such a big secret. We also concluded that one of these days, no matter how powerful the pull of family loyalty, Bristol will find her voice.

KaJo said...

For Don G. and Sheesh...

Trig or Tripp?

(not Trigg)

Which did you mean?

Amy1 said...

Laura said: "I know of a doctor who said, "That baby is drugged!" about his lack of response to the lights and noise at the RNC. It struck many people as odd."

That's what I meant about never seeing Trig cry when on stage at the convention. Just normal baby-fussing crying. Every other baby I have known has had its moments of declaring its preference for some other arrangement -- the rumble, lights, noise, amplified voice and music, tension, smells of a convention stage would surely have been noticed and commented upon by babies of my acquaintance -- at least occasionally. (Being deaf would make no difference, as other senses would fill in to grasp all of it.)

fifitrixiebelle said...

Dangerous -

What if I were to tell you that the rumours were circulated by the son of a prominent person in Anchorage? Someone who is not known for making up stories?

B said...

Don G,
I don't think Tripp has been born yet but I do think he will be.

If Bristol were not pregnant, Sarah would have needed to announce a miscarriage or to have an adoption lined up. She plans to run for President in 2012. Both she and Bristol will need to have toddlers then that aren't the same child, one older and with DS. Voters and MSM will notice.

So if Trig turns into Tripp, as you suggest, Sarah will have to fess up. It won't happen, imo.

Besides, Bristol looked pregnant on election day in the convenience store, supposedly in Arizona by the pool after the election, arguably in NYC in October, and reasonably so on the tarmac arriving for the RNC. I believe she was 3-4 months pregnant, not 5 mos, at the RNC. Time will tell.

B said...

Good find, Diana:

Diana said...
I find it interesting that Providence Hospital in Anchorage...the one with the great neo natal facility that Sarah visted in Aug.2008...has eliminated from their website any news or press releases from March 16th 2008 on. They have 2009
with plenty of news and press releases and events for Jan. And they have plenty before March 16th 2008. Then they just stop right there...March 16th. Nothing until Jan. 2009.

penny in paradise said...

I guess I missed Audrey conclusively saying that the "Bristol-in-green-with-a-baby-bump," or "BIG WABB" family photo was not originally posted with a 2007 date, then changed to 2006. Did I loose anybody ? :) Seems like it could be from 2007, because Piper has moments when she looks younger, and I believe Bristol in jeans in an official family photo, holding her hands accentuating the early belly (as all of us moms have done)
certainly seems like she was challenging her mom.

The supposed birth of Tripp did not push me toward the belief of an earlier pregnancy, it was the photos that almost certainly show Trig at different ages. Perhaps if Bristol had a late term ultrasound that suggested DS, that was when Sarah decided to adopt him and announce "her pregnotcy." Who knows what the plan was before that point...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, maybe Levi is not the father/father-to-be of Tripp? It would explain why we have not seen him. Maybe they are hoping this will all blow over, and Bristol can then carry on with her new baby, with or without his daddy.


It seems that in stating as "truth," what we really don't absolutely know to be so, is not very productive, so I think we should all continue theorizing to our hearts content! IMO the truth has been touched upon more than a few times here, and just because something seems like it couldn't happen in a normal hospital in the lower 48, what happens in an Alaskan hospital with strong ties to a bizarre church whose most famous member is also the governor...I think anything is possible.

All is not lost though...
Read the outpouring against her stranglehold, on themudflats.net blog before Monday's filing against Sarah. One troll dropped a comment supportive of Palin and it was ripped apart!

Time to let others speculate!

penny

Littl' Me said...

OK. It's been more than a month now that 'Tripp' was supposedly born. WHERE ARE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS of him being seen?
WHERE IS TRIPP??? WHERE IS BRISTOL??? Someone up in Alaska should call the child welfare agency and report a missing teen and a missing baby...

On the other hand, I do not understand why SP would fake *Bristols* (second?) pregnancy, if Bristol was not pregnant, and then fake a new baby - she could have gotten away easy if she had just said that the baby was still-born. Nobody would have snooped around much on a grieving family, I would think, and the whole story would have died a quiet death - at least the story of Tripp. (Now, if he suddenly *now* dies, it would raise questions beyond questions...)

Don G. said...

Blogger KaJo said...

For Don G. and Sheesh...

Trig or Tripp?

(not Trigg)

Which did you mean?

January 28, 2009 2:39 PM

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

I checked my recent 2 posts and I made no errors. I meant what I said. Trigg doesn't exist and never will unless one of the Palin kids gets pregnant. Trigg is Bristol's baby.

I say this as a challenge to anyone who thinks they can poke a hole in the theory. And mainly to lead this conversation in a direction which could stimulate something other than specualation. Or in other words, I'm right with my theory so prove I'm not.

respectfullly of course KaJo.

Don G. said...

B said...

Don G,
I don't think Tripp has been born yet but I do think he will be.

If Bristol were not pregnant, Sarah would have needed to announce a miscarriage or to have an adoption lined up. She plans to run for President in 2012. Both she and Bristol will need to have toddlers then that aren't the same child, one older and with DS. Voters and MSM will notice.

So if Trig turns into Tripp, as you suggest, Sarah will have to fess up. It won't happen, imo.

Besides, Bristol looked pregnant on election day in the convenience store, supposedly in Arizona by the pool after the election, arguably in NYC in October, and reasonably so on the tarmac arriving for the RNC. I believe she was 3-4 months pregnant, not 5 mos, at the RNC. Time will tell

--

Alright B, good points. So tell me now why Palin would need to say that Bristol was 5 months pregnant and not 3 or 4, thereby causing herself more problems. I can think of a good reason why she should have said 3 or 4 months and not been up against the problem of having no baby to produce now. A month late! And I can think of a reason why Bristol needed to look pregnant every time she was seen in public after the campaign. I can't think of any reason why Bristol or Tripp aren't being seen now.

Don G. said...

Little me- I think that one ending to this novel which the author could use would be to kill Tripp Palin in the next month or so. But I don't think that would be a very satisfactory ending and it wouldn't seel all that well. I think maybe the author could have Bristol and Levi move away to an undisclosed location out of the country and live happily ever after.

sandra said...

Just when it seems we're closing in to an answer we find more questions. Someone once described knowledge as a circle. The circumference is touching the unknown. As the knowledge grows, the circle gets larger, and there is more unknown. That's why this blog has become so long and complicated.

I am wondering if Bristol and Levi may be out of Alaska. That would help them avoid any sightings by people who know them.

I am also wondering what will happen as people begin to realize they've been lied to. Will they became angry or ashamed?

I have witnessed on another site the gradual change of a pro-Palin poster as his ideas are challenged. We can search for truth here, but I think we should also preach to others than the choir.

sandra in oregon

Alex said...

Wow-- what a day. This forum always amazes me.

Dee! That sounds like a major idea to me: that the same Sarah who would have to adopt has to face the adoption board with them knowing she faked a pregnancy. Or does a lawyer handle it all anonymously? Would an agency make a "fit home" call on the governor? But then that person-- even if they don't make the actual housecall, still would know it was all a charade. . .

I just hadn't thought that all through. It's all so messy.

----

And Fifitrixibelle, please tell us more. You seem to have some valuable knowledge to impart.

------

I don't think anything Sarah could ever do would surprise me, including faking a pregnancy and then not bother to file adoption papers. Could a midwife be persuaded to falsify a birth record?

Complainer in Chief said...

Andrew Sullivan has once again brought up the issue of Palin and pregnancy:

Whatever happened with the alleged People magazine Tripp photo spread?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/01/know-fear.html

-Attack Crowes

Brrr said...

I think Alex hit the nail on the head in regard to they WHY behind the wild ride story. Poor grandpa Heath likes to talk to the media. Of course, he was proud of his daughter's pioneer fortitude for havin' that baby back home in AK. So, YES, the lie SP told Dad had to be 'splained to those pesky reporters.

I am fervently hoping those in the know will be coming forth sooner than later with quantifiable info.

Without any disrespect to what so many of you believe, I am firmly convinced that Bristol HAD a baby in December. I do NOT believe that she is the mother of Trigg. Among other reasons, she was seen by a number of reliable sources last January and February in Anchorage and was certainly not visibly pregnant.

That being said, I do NOT believe that Sarah is the mother of Trigg either. The preggo story was hastily concocted and amateurishly executed. SP was counting on the press taking a hands-off approach to such a personal matter. And, for the most part, initially, the media did just that.

Many alternative theories have been offered up on this blog. I believe we may have had a very close insider amongst us for a while.

Where are you Fly on the Wall? Please come back and tell us more about what you know regarding the relationship between the Palins and the Johnstons.

nir said...

The video, "Gov. Palin vetoes 2/3 of capital budget projects" (Dated 4/6/08): the hands. I have never met a pregnant woman whose hands didn't swell in her last trimester, certainly her last month. Her hands, face, and neck look much too thin. Even women who are anorexic will put on water weight in their faces and hands when they're pregnant.

LondonBridges said...

This is Audrey's post regarding the famous bump pic. While at the end Audrey says it is likely to have been taken in 2006, but she does not say why. On the other hand a picture was in the ADN in Oct. with the same famility outfits as the bump picture. Seems unlikely a year old picture would be featured in the paper.

However, Audrey's note states it couldn't show a baby bump based on a May 18 or so due date if it was taken in October. However if the due date were March or April that certainly could be a baby bump as then it would be 14-15 weeks or 18-19 weeks.
Audrey's post:
Update (9/24/08) "Baby Bump" disproved. This photo, which was taken by Anchorage Daily News Photographer Mark Lester appeared in the Anchorage Daily News on October 23, 2007. It is identified as being taken at the Palin's home at Lake Lucile in Wasilla. There's no confirmation that the photo was taken that day (i.e, October 23). It could have been taken months earlier. But the family is clearly wearing the same clothing as in the larger photo above. (We can't see Bristol's shirt, but Sarah's jacket, Piper's shirt, and Willow's shirt are all the same.) Given a due date of 5/15/08, IF this picture was taken on 10/23, no matter who is or is not pregnant, it would not have been beyond 10-11 weeks, way too early to show, particularly on a first time mother. (Update: Additional evidence makes it likely that this picture -and the one above - were taken in the fall/early winter of 2006)

jeanie said...

Dangerous said...

"If Trig was born much earlier than April 17-18, one has to explain why Bristol (and Willow, who is still a suspect) would attend an indoor luncheon on Feb. 15 when a late-term pregnancy would be impossible to hide. "

What real evidence is there of this? I don't think there are any photos - and I heard speculation about getting everyone closer to the IronDog finish on the state's dime, but I haven't seen any official article on this.

Tully said...

The belief of some bloggers that Trig was born before April 19, 2008 really does seem to have intensified since the announcement of Tripp's birth. Keep in mind, people, that all we have is an announcement of the birth, no evidence of it whatsoever. I agree with B.'s thinking that Bristol was pregnant at the RNC, just not five months along. Tripp will show up soon, just be patient.

I don't undertand why so many are saying that Trig looks a lot older in the picture with the Heaths than in the MySpace photos with Mercede. In the former, he is heavily swadled and all one can see is his face. Yes, it looks quite full, but newborns can be a little waterlogged at first. And, IF (big if) labor was preterm, mom could have received steroids to help with lung maturity. That can contribute to the fullness also. Applying the KISS principle, someone's water broke in the early am April 17. When Chuck Heath said "her water broke," I think it was Bristol. Sarah appropriated it, as she did the pregnancy. I like Audrey's speculation regarding the birth certificate possibly dated 4-17 at a time when Sarah was verifiably en route.

Dangerous said...

fifitrixiebelle asked me:

What if I were to tell you that the rumours were circulated by the son of a prominent person in Anchorage? Someone who is not known for making up stories?

My response would be the same as for any hearsay evidence: who is the person, what makes it a rumor versus a knowledgeable report of fact, and will that person put forward the verifiable basis for what is claimed?

fifi -- you also mention the Feb 15 luncheon in another post. I and others (including, I believe, Audrey) have accepted as fact that Willow and Bristol did attend that event because the contemporaneous report of Ms. Bartels' statement and it's context, implies that she was speaking the truth. The statement was made against SP's interest, and so many other people were there that her overtly lying makes no sense at all. Nevertheless, Audrey and others are seeking corroboration and, if available, pictures from that event.

We do know the family was in Fairbanks the next for the end of the Iron Dog in Fairbanks, so their Palin girls all attend a AHA luncheon about women's health is not that farfetched. SP may have brought her girls to the luncheon as an 'official' reason for expensing their travel, which was probably more for the Iron Dog race.

That Feb 15 luncheon is THE MOST IMPORTANT unexplored evidence opportunity. If there are pictures of the girls, whoever is either looks pregnant or looks like they are disguising a pregnancy is Trig's mother. If there are good shots of them and they do look pregnant, then our entire thesis may be wrong.

At this point, eyewitness accounts will not be enough, but there must have been pictures.

Dangerous

Tina in CA said...

How about this one?

Think back to the zoo photo. Who did we think the girl in the middle might be? Lauden Bruce.

Can't you just see Sarah using her executive power to allow her sister's sweet daughter the opportunity to have some fun with the cousins? Perhaps attend luncheons, trips to Philly and the zoo on the State of Alaska's buck???

It makes me wonder if "Aunt Sarah" who invites her children to everything might have used Lauden as a stand in for Bristol to people who wouldn't have known otherwise. Aren't both girls about the same age? Don't all of those girls look rather similar?

Perhaps Lauden was at the luncheon in February and everyone just assumed that those were Sarah's three daughters. Unless they knew Bristol (I'm not sure what function they were attending and where) they wouldn't know the difference, would they?

luna1580 said...

i have a big question:

how did we learn that mat-su regional hospital has ties to, or is "controlled by" sarah palin's church members, or otherwise associated with her on a personal/political level?

here's the hospital's website:

http://tinyurl.com/ab2d4s

it says there was a major remodel/relocation of facilities, as well as a merger in december 2003, SP could have helped something along there! it also lists who the current board members/trustees are, but nothing about them.

i'm not saying the idea of her political-favors-owed influence and/or church influence there is untrue.

in fact i think it's very likely, and if true a VERY important puzzle piece in the whole birth mystery.

i just can't find any sources or articles or anything on it. can someone help me out?

thanks

onething said...

Dangerous,

I think April 17th is a likely birthdate, but I don't rule out ealier. As to the Feb 15 dinner, no pictures have been forthcoming, so I'm holding that even in skepticism.

If he was born earlier, he need not have been in an ICU. If he came earlier, it's because he was due earlier.

You said that it made no sense for Sarah to tell people she would have a baby in May unless she expected to have all that time to do a better job of faking it.
But, it seems to me that the decision to fake the pregnancy came late in the game, and perhaps she picked the later date because she needed to be the least far along that she could possibly get away with. Being 7 months at the announcement already raised many eyebrows, which even a 6 month announcement would not have done. Then, she planned to pretend that the baby was born early to help cover for her late announcement.

Also, LondonBridged post is very reasonable, @ 10:19 am, and might be compatible with a slightly earlier birth, even as little as two weeks or so.

"On other subject, the famous Bristol-in-green-with-a-baby-bump picture is from 2006, not 2007. Audrey has shown that conclusively."

Where? I think she said it was no later than October 23, 2007, which would make Bristol, in my estimation, about 13-14 weeks, with a Trig conception date of about July 15.

There's a very good website that deals with this photo. I'd really like your opinion. I won't post it here because the two previous posts in which I mentinoed it (without a link) disappeared. But I'll post it next.

Diana said...

Re: The Fairbanks Luncheon event in February. It is possible that Bristol was there and bundled up...or it was a friend of Willows that attended. Without a photo we can't say for sure if she attended and or if it was really her.

We do know the very next day Sarah was with her family meeting Todd at the finish of the Iron Dog also in Fairbanks. He broke his arm and had to be taken to get it set. In the video of the event Piper and Willow come over to him...and Willow is calling someone to come over. I am pretty sure it was Bristol keeping out of the way of the cameras. That alone is very telling. Bristol was hiding from being photographed!!! Not Sarah! So...who does that make pregnant?? Funny how they can't see how transparent it is to everyone!

Also...at Providence Hospital in Anchorage they have a housing facility available for families to use.

If Bristol and her Auntie were staying there after Trigg was born Bristol could breastfeed Trig and be close by while they did follow up tests on him.

If Bristol did stay there why would anyone pay attention to her coming and going unless she wanted to draw attention to herself and I doubt that! She easily could have used a different name and hid under a hoodie.

Sarah is so easy to read and her actions are just so transparent. She is just not good at lying and pretending. Just look at how botched the fake pregnancy look is.

What does Sarah’s actions show us?

*Sarah visits the Neo Natal Unit in Anchorage in August and sees first hand that it has “state of the art” technology. She would want only the best for her daughter and if she didn't know that Bristol was pregnant yet...she knew the resources they offered.

*Sarah takes Bristol with her on a trip for some one on one problem solving/decision time?

*Sarah announces November as Alaska’s Adoption month.

*Sarah sends Bristol to her sisters in Anchorage in December before the Holidays?

*Sarah finds out in January that Bristol’s baby has DS and realizes she cannot adopt him out?

*In February she signs a Healthcare Transparency act...so she can find out about the costs and Health care information she needs for a DS baby. Plans for an adoption change and now Sarah needs to become pregnant?

*In March she needs to pull off a pregnancy. Sarah thinks has until mid-May to pull it off?

*Bristol delivers Trig prematurely the week of March 14th at Providence Hospital in Anchorage where she is staying with her Aunt? Stays after Trigs birth at the living facilities offered to the family's while Trig is getting medical attention.

*Sarah fly’s into Anchorage and is absent from the public more than usual during this period of time?

*Press releases and Newsletters are missing off Providence Hospitals website starting March 16th not to start again until Jan. 2009.

*Sarah puts together a story that we call the "wild ride". But to Sarah it is just a way to get away from the local media...return in the middle of the night and retrieve an older newly released Trig.

*They head over to Mat-Su Regional Hospital to present Trig to the media. April 18th!

KaJo said...

I uploaded the screen capture pictures from the video James linked to in his comments 1/28/09 3:25 AM. They're at

http://s406.photobucket.com/albums/pp141/WestCorrespondent/Sarah%20Palin/

Check the video pix from 3/11/08, 3/21/08, 3/26-27/08, 3/29/08 at luncheon, and 4/6/08 with legislature.

----------

While I was at it, I looked a LOT more closely at Audrey's 3/29/08 picture of Palin with the blonde pregnant lady -- both the original picture and the one where the scarf has been changed to white. If you enlarge that photo to 400x (which I recommend for the video captures, too), you can see a very distinct grayish tint to the black shirt she's wearing, between the 3rd and the 5th buttons on the white jacket.

I wonder if someone finally showed her the 3/26 pictures and this one, and she finally realized that the Kevlar-vest-like empathy belly she was using was pretty fakey-looking.

Punkinbugg said...

OK I'll bite, fifitrixiebelle.

Most of the high-society fund-raising people in any town are Republicans, especially the American Heart Association's doctors and their wives.

What's so special about the Bartels?

And why would someone "not known for making up stories" be a reliable source, if he spreads "rumours", as you spell it? ... even if he is the son of a prominent person? Surely you are not referring to Track Palin....!

Instead of this vague cat & mouse stuff, if you have real information, please email it directly to Audrey:

info@palindeception.com

I'm sure she would protect your identity.

Windy City Woman said...

OK, so a state social worker would have to make a visit to the Palin home to determine suitability so that Sarah & Todd could adopt Trig.

What are the chances that the Palin home would be deemed unsuitable?

Do they lack plumbing facilities or heat? Are there dangerous loose electrical wires? Does the family bring in too little income to support another child? Aren't there 2 teenagers living at home to help babysit, in addition to two parents?

I think the approval would be a slam-dunk.

Besides, the social worker, a state employee(?), probably wants to keep his or her job, as does that person's supervisor.

How much power do you think Sarah would yield in that situation?

I may be a bit biased, living in Chicago, but here it is well-known that you can't get a city or county job without "connections." Some people say that is true for state jobs as well; I don't know first-hand, as I work for a private company.

But I don't think "faking a pregnancy" would prevent the Palins from being qualified to adopt Trig.

I think we should keep considering Sarah's oft-married sister Molly as a possible biological mom for Trig.

fifitrixiebelle said...

haha! Puckinbugg.

A little bird tells me that Audrey already has this information to hand.

dipsydoodlenoodle said...

Tina in CA Think back to the zoo photo. Who did we think the girl in the middle might be? Lauden Bruce

I don't seem to recall a dead set name being put forward for who everyone was in the photo. I think Audrey said it was Bristol and Willow; however I don't think many people on the blogg (myself included) thought it was both Bristol and Willow.

dipsydoodlenoodle said...

luna i have a big question:

how did we learn that mat-su regional hospital has ties to, or is "controlled by" sarah palin's church members, or otherwise associated with her on a personal/political level?


I have a feeling someone "from Alaska" on the site said it...I don't remember if there were links to back it up or not.

JJ said...

I am going with the mid-March delivery date for Trig because of the following "coincidences":

1- Levi drops out of school then/No Bristol
2- Very little official Sarah activity at mid-March, lasting a couple of weeks
3- No press releases from Providence Hosp from March 16 on
4- Trig not looking "newborn" in April (contrasted with Triggy Bear pictures)
5- wild ride in April could possibly coincide with a hospital release date for a premature, jaundiced, DS baby born in mid-March

Can anybody think of more?

wayofpeace said...

RIGHT ON, diana.

this new detail (the ANCHORAGE HOSPITAL) places another piece on the puzzle!

following the puzzle-game metaphor: seems to me that the border is all done, now it's just a matter of details.

and this new one explains two issues: the longer hospital stay that would have been required for TRIG and the editing of the records for that period in question at that hospital.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 215   Newer› Newest»