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.

210 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 210 of 210
freethinkergirl said...

Where is Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston? Not born yet?
Why does Trig Paxton Van Palin not show in Intelius Search? Purposely never registered?

Search: Todd Mitchell Palin
Wasilla, AK
Sarah Heath Palin
Susan L Palin
Willow B Palin
Track C Palin
Todel Palin
T L Palin
Bristol S Palin
Piper I Palin

Search: Levi Johnston
Eleanor E Johnston
Keith E Johnston
Sherry L Johnston
Mercede M Johnston
Joel H Johnston

B said...

Patrick,

Is that Trooper Wooten in the Christmas photo? Hadn't he and Molly split by December 2007?

KaJo said...

nir said @ 1/28/09 4:54 PM..."Even women who are anorexic will put on water weight in their faces and hands when they're pregnant.

I got involved in a debate with a person on Celtic Diva's blog, an ex-Army nurse, who has bought into the "fundie abortion" version of Sarah Palin and her "wild ride", i.e., believing Palin WAS pregnant.

She was pretty rude to me when I disagreed with some of her observations (especially when I said she was wrong about a few medical facts...she disqualified me because I'm not a nurse).

She especially put down my observation that Sarah Palin was wearing high heels on 4/10/08 -- there are Flickr pictures of her that day -- during an outdoor event that probably took at least an hour, with absolutely no hand swelling, nor lower extremity swelling, not even around her ankles.

It was like, "don't argue with me, my mind is made up".

Like you, nir, I still think the absence of any swelling at all for a 44 year old "pregnant" woman is pretty unusual...perhaps even weird.

(my word verification is "palog")

Rob G. said...

Blogger B said...

Five was the exact number of months that would have made Bristol pregnant 4/18 when Trig was (allegedly) born. First of Sept minus 5 mos = first of April. Four months wouldn't have been airtight. Sarah can count.

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

Exactly B! And there is no baby to show which proves the lie. My objective B is to try to question some of the specualation and show that it's not valid. This issue pretty much proves that there will be no baby to show in a month or two.

Now let's trust our common sense. If there was a baby to show then now is the time to show it, along with Bristol not being pregnant. If the baby is not shown now but shown in a month of two then Palin's deception of Bristol not possibly being the mother of Trigg is done for. Or in other words, if she could produce Bristol and Tripp now then she absolutely would do that.

But she doesn't and hasn't and what does that tell us? There is obviously no Tripp.

There never will be a Tripp to produce.

We are being browbeaten by ourselves and we're our own worst enemies. We're simply doubting our common sense!

B said...

Don G, I still don't agree that there is no Tripp. I think Palin will use the winter and privacy arguments to wait a couple of months and then show Bristol and a baby at a distance. Then by next summer we'll see Tripp's face and not be able to tell if he is 4 or 6mos. Sure, it's not ideal for Palin, but it's better than never having any Tripp to show -- which would not be OK for a national politician and would mean to most people, as you point out, that Bristol had Trig. That cannot be her plan, imo.

Rob G. said...

You may be right B but one way or another the situation becomes one of Bristol, Levi, Trigg, and Tripp all having to stay living in mommy and daddy's house. Or scenario #2 without a Tripp. Providing that Levi marries Bristol. And if we follow that through then we end up with an impossible situation.

And all this takes place well before 2012 so the proverbial sh-t hits the fan for Sarah anyway.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.

LOL

Betsy S said...

You guys are great, I can't name you all, but it's a wonderful, controlled and creative blog, with very
few wacky swipes.
I think we're close to agreeing that Trigg was born in Anchorage in March. My most fervent reason for believing this is that no newborn, DS, infant would go to work with his "mom" at three days old. Surely, observation and testing would take about two weeks minimum! Also, IMO, 6 lb is not a premie weight, less than 5 lb is considered that. I like the idea that with this April call to action Sarah could pretend pregnancy for a shorter time, she certainly never bought any kind of maternity wardrobe for herself.
Respectfully, I think it's time for another topic.
I am seriously wondering why no MSM purveyors, not the newspapers, tabloids, celebrity gossip columnists, internet news sites, TV or radio gossip programs, anybody! is not taking this extraordinary scenario up. Even the existence of our tenacity is worth a mention. I'm not the most thorough searcher, but I haven't seen a mention of Bristol, Levi, Sherry, Trig, Tripp, or any of that crew, since January 8th. Where's the apology or explanation from People Mag? Was it really a cold call to the Aunty in Washington that jumped the news on Tripp?
Is the family aiming shotguns at the paparazzi in the shrubbery? Somebody must find out soon, unless it's all a hush-up ploy by the CNP, who have sort of already acquired all the MSM.

Amy1 said...

B, your last post jogged my thinking this way: what if in 6 mo (or whenever -- some longish time into the future) SP unveils the two babies, and says "the reason we didn't show him off before is that he was early -- Tripp was actually born in early Dec (or Nov, even)."

Yet SP would stick to the Apr 18 birthday for Trig. None of this has to be true, but let's say that's her story. They were happy to announce the birth so much later because they didn't want all the snoopy attention, esp since SP was no longer a candidate. So that becomes her story and she sticks to it. And as you say, in a number of months, who would be able to tell the difference, visually.

Plus by then you'd think she would get some fake birth certificates and accompanying legalities all settled.

So bringing the two births closer together in this way would help her story a lot.

So that's why I keep coming back to the one big thing (for me): SHE WAS NOT PREGNANT. Again, I refer to the photos as really incontestible proof.

AKPetMom said...

Just to clear this up:
Providence Alaska Medical Center in Anchorage does not show a gap in media during any period of time 2008/2009: Link below

http://www.providence.org/alaska/media/0006news.htm

Anonymous said...

***From the Moderator***

To NJESQ:

Thank you for your comment, but given that such a thing is more suited for direct email to Audrey, I rejected it and sent her a copy of it.

Should you want to follow up to ask her for her impressions, her email address is easily found on the main Web site that goes with this blog.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 210 of 210   Newer› Newest»