Thursday, January 1, 2009

Yes, Bristol Palin is 18...

Several people have commented on my last post, pointing out that Bristol is over 18 now and really any information about the baby needs to come from her and Levi, and if they choose not to release anything it's their call. This is 100% true and I cannot dispute that. The two young people are entitled to their privacy, and even though at times in my frustration over some aspects of this, I may get a little sarcastic or "snarky," truly I have nothing but sympathy for the two young people and wish them the best.

It is uniquely awkward however that this pregnancy - which was used deliberately and explicitly to prove that Trig had to be Sarah's - was "then" fair game and is "now" off-limits. I don't know how to reconcile this.

I don't agree that because the election is over that this is suddenly a non-issue.

For example, let's say a candidate has been widely rumored to have a history of domestic violence but he has denied it. He loses the election but is still being widely discussed as a potential player in the next election. Then, the facts come out after the election that the story was true all along. Heck yes, I think it would still be news and a valid topic for discussion.

Bristol is entitled to her privacy and it is her call whether we ever see a single photo of the child. No argument there.

This potential deception, however, is not like lying about a job, or an educational background. In this case - let's be clear - the potential hoaxer used another person (her own minor child) potentially to perpetrate her lies. And now, because that second person (oh so conveniently) has become an adult, she's off limits.

I don't have an easy answer to this one.


1 – 200 of 386   Newer›   Newest»
Diane said...


I just discovered your blog today.

Much as I think Palin is a loathsome, manipulative, power-mad, vindictive kook who is coarse, vulgar, unfit for public office and honestly just not worth our time -- much as I think that, I think Trig is her baby because why not? His having Downs is consistent with her age, not with Bristol's. And, Bristol HAD a baby. The cat is out of the bag. What would the motivation be to lie about Trig?

You may have addressed this in your previous posts. Like I said I only just discovered the blog today.

Wouldn't it be fun to go to Wasilla and make friends and get people talking and then post? It would be undercover work.

Mary G. said...

Since Palin releases few "statements", and those are sphinx-like in their devious ambiguity, it really is worth pondering her latest pronouncement regarding dropouts and GEDs. I have puzzled over the timing of this (well, of course it's just another distraction, and, like her debate performance, manages to substitute the answer she is prepared to discuss for the one she was asked to deliver). But, wasn't the original story that Bristol was out of school "sick"? or on some other medical-type leave? That doesn't make her a dropout. Sarah Palin--you forgot your script! You're going rogue on yourself (just like dear old auntie Colleen going rogue recently!). Mary g.

RW said...

"In this case - let's be clear - the potential hoaxer used another person (her own minor child) potentially to perpetrate her lies."

Yes Audrey.
The bottom line is if SP had not created the entire Wild Ride Story(WRS) I dont think any of this looking at SP, or BP, would be happening.

SP did this.

SP threw her daughter under the bus.

Anonymous said...

"His having Downs is consistent with her age, not with Bristol's. And, Bristol HAD a baby."

Diane, you need to read some of the background information on the Palin Deception Website. While it's true that older women have a greater chance of having a DS baby, more DS babies are born to younger women than older- because there are more younger women having babies.

Also: how do you know Bristol has had a baby? Because you were told? Did you see a picture of Bristol with this baby? Do you know the baby's weight, for sure? Where was he born? Where is Bristol now?

Sarah Palin says Bristol had a baby, and Sarah Palin is a liar. We don't know that Bristol has given birth. We have only Sarah's untrustworthy word.

Anonymous said...

Audrey, I understand your frustration. We all thought the birth (or non-birth) of Bristol's baby would be the next big piece of the puzzle - so far, it isn't.
And we're all just talking here, but you've put a tremendous amount of your own time and resources into this. Even though I don't agree with the past couple of posts, I still admire all that you've done here.

Someday SP will reap what she's sown. Keep the faith, just don't lose perspective.

S in Chgo

ocean said...

Andrew Sullivan has been on vacation. I think even he has lost track of the odd lies of Sarah Palin. I hope he adds the "fact" that high school graduates now receive degrees instead of diplomas and also that dropouts earning a GED are not really dropouts.

The odd lies

Anonymous said...

OK now I have to run to the library to get Agatha Christie!

Anonymous said...

Bristol and Levi allowed themselves to be used as props for Sarah's fictitious story about herself. They could have said no to the whole ruse, or to being paraded on stage at the RNC; but they went along with Sarah's script of their own free will. Presuming Trig is their son, which I believe he is, they could have refused to allow him to be handled like a puppet, but they did not have enough backbone to stand up for themselves and their son. They became part of Sarah's celebrity, and now they cannot just snap their fingers and put the genie back in the bottle.

Anonymous said...

When Bristol and Levi eschew any and all money, gifts and other gains from their unearned celebrity, then they can make a case for being off-limits. But when we hear on the one hand that they are being showered with gifts and offered a lot of money for baby pictures, then they are certainly not off limits. Can't have it both ways.

wrisky said...

The Trygg Palin saga is perplexing. Sarah's "official" account is simply laughable and the apparent cast of characters is rather small. Yet we still don't know just why they went to such lengths to conceal Trygg's true parentage. It is undeterminable with the facts available.
Does anyone else get the feeling that they weren't prepared for the level of scrutiny they have been getting. The scheme necessarily admits new members into confidence in order to plug this or that leak and it just gets that much harder to keep a lid on everything. Some peripheral players may feel like they are being used poorly and be tempted to blow the whistle. The more people in the know, the harder it is to keep schemes secret. Keep in mind too that as the participants watch the coverage get tighter they know that only the first ones to sell out can cash in !

Fran said...

I don't understand how Bristol being 18, means that she is now more of a private person then when she was a minor. I would argue that now that she is a legal adult she is fair game. It's not fair that what should be a private situation has become a public one because her mother is the govonor of Alaska and the 2008 Republican candidate for VP of the US. But life isn't fair. It also isn't fair that she by virtue of her mother's position has had experiences that 99.9% of Americans will never get. It is also not fair that by virtue of who her mother is, Bristol could and still can do things that most of us can only dream about. She could have stayed in highschool and been accepted to a really great college, even if her grades don't merit acceptence because of who her mother is. She could get a great internship in virtualy any field anywhere in the country because of who her mother is. The fact that she choose to throw away opportunities that others struggle a lifetime for doesn't make me feel a great deal of pity for Bristol. Sure it sucks to be her right now. But frankly, because of who her mom is, it sucks a whole lot less then many, many other 18 Americans who don't have a fraction of her advantages.

As to Sara's delayed and strange non-informative announcements regarding the birth of Tripp, I wonder if Bristol is hiding from Sara. Is it possible that Sara may simply not know what is going on because Bristol has not contacted her?

If Bristol has not yet given birth could their be fraud involved if Tripp's Alaskan rebate is claimed in 2008 when he wasn't born to sometime in 2009? Did Sara not think things through again?

palin pregnancy truth said...

OK, I agree with the need to respect Bristol's privacy.


She should have done this all along instead of saying, "Bristol is pregnant now, so the rumors about Trig can't be true".

Craig said...

Well, your example would seem to be the exposure of a criminal act and it involves the direct actions of a candidate himself/herself.

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 7:33: Come on now. They're kids, and even people who aren't kids can be manipulated by their parents.

To Anon @ 7:43: the reports of money and gifts that you're taking as truth are the same reports that others are taking as lies about the baby's birth. There's no proof of anything in either direction. Can't have it both ways.

S in Chgo

Anonymous said...

I'm more concerned about where Barack Obama was born than I am about who is Trigs mother. I looked at your pictures. Sarah looks pregnant to me. I didn't get the same size with all of my pregnancies nor did my daughter. You say that the people need to know if Trig is Sarah's or Bristol's. Why? We have a man who is getting ready to assume the position of President of the United States and he has not had to prove one thing. No educational records, no medical records, and most importantly no birth certificate. So why don't you use your energy to investigate that. Instead of something that really makes no difference.

Joe Christmas said...

Keep up the excellent work Audrey.
This fraud, fiasco, farce only gets more entangled. How will it implode/explode?
I will bet my Medical License that Trig is not SP's. The disconcerting thing is that these clowns are going to get big cash money for "exclusive" pics of Tripper/Trig2.

littl' me said...

Wrisky at January 1, 2009 7:51 PM : "Yet we still don't know just why they went to such lengths to conceal Trygg's true parentage. "
Yes, *I* do: If BP was the real mother, she would have been SIXTEEN when she became pregnant, and it would have fallen under STATUTORY RAPE!

Anonymous said...


I am hopeful that the more mysterious Palin's family is about Tripp, including not showing a baby in public in Wasilla, the more pressure will be put on Sarah to show the proof you call for that Tripp has in fact been born.

But history shows that when she could have put the Trig story to rest with more details, she didn't. Until there's proof of Tripp's birth, we'll keep talking.

But even if Tripp exists, and even if Trig was born April 18, it doesn't change the main story: Sarah wasn't pregnant with Trig. How can we get the media to look at the evidence you've amassed? -B.

Anonymous said...

If there is something not on the up and up about Tripp's birth then I would not have expected a magazine pictorial. And then of course we learn from People mag that there's no done deal. As someone who saw that post church fire video of bristol I suspect she is still pregnant. I would bet there is never a magazine pic deal.

Anonymous said...

I have been thinking about the sparse sourcing for the current claim that a birth took place in the last couple of days. My conclusion is that, no, Bristol Palin has not yet given birth to her latest child.

But for political reasons it needs to appear she has. Because the questions that would be raised about the lie the McCain/Palin campaign put out in early September about Palin's daughter being a full five months pregnant are not questions they want to answer.

They lied about the progress of Bristol Palin's current pregnancy then. And they are lying about the claimed birth now (to cover for the earlier lie, itself a lie to cover for an even earlier lie).

Silvergirl said...

Anonymous at 7:33 PM said:

"Bristol and Levi allowed themselves to be used as props for Sarah's fictitious story about herself. They could have said no to the whole ruse, or to being paraded on stage at the RNC; but they went along with Sarah's script of their own free will. Presuming Trig is their son, which I believe he is, they could have refused to allow him to be handled like a puppet, but they did not have enough backbone to stand up for themselves and their son. They became part of Sarah's celebrity, and now they cannot just snap their fingers and put the genie back in the bottle."

When you are raised by a manipulative controlling parent such as Sarah Palin, you really don't review your options as her child. She claims ownership of her children. Unfortunately, they are all props being used to "prove" Sarah has good solid family values. Those values are in question by any reasonable person, like Audrey, who has done an excellent job evaluating the discrepancies in the Trigg birth story.

Someday the kids will all wise up, but that may be years from now. I understand their compliance with her deceptions. They don't think they have any other choices right now. It's do what Mama says, or there will be hell to pay.

Anonymous said...

This could have been SP on her wild ride! "Baby born in midair"

Lisa G

Anonymous said...

Audrey continue to be Authentic:

We all deserve a voice just like Gov Sarah Palin. Gov Palin whirled around the country with family in tow "All Kids" voicing her opinion of people she had never met! Slandering and creating a atmosphere of Hate and Violence at her rallies. To the point of people voicing "Kill".

Audrey and all those people that believe in truth and justice have every right to continue this investigation. Audrey has every right to put forth what words she is feeling.

I am tired of people thinking Gov Sarah Palin can say whatever she wants, but people that want to confront her do not have those same rights.

What could be the only reason Gov Sarah Palin would not want a picture with her first grandbaby?

1. There is no baby.

Gov Sarah Palin was not shy about putting every family member in the spotlight and camera's on the campaign trail for 2 months. Gov Sarah Palin was the one to introduce the country to her preggo daughter. The american people did not pry that info from her.

And now her family is private. What a JOKE! The only reason Gov Sarah Palin who loves the Camera and to she her face palstered over every magazine and on every media outlet will not show us a picture of her and her cute little bundle of joy 1st grandbaby is because there is no grandbaby. At least not today. Maybe next week or month maybe never.

We will not see a baby and may never see one until Gov Sarah Palin writes the next part of her movie.

House of Brat said...

I think that since the Bristol's current pregnancy was announced publicly at the beginning of September, then it is open for public discussion. If Sarah wanted to keep Bristol's life truly private, she should/could have released medical information to dispel the idea that Trigg is not her son. Since she chose not to do that, then this particular of Bristol's is open to public discussion. If Bristol gets pregnant again, the same argument could not be made unless SP decides to announce the pregnancy publicly.

On a different note, I'm curious as to whether Sherri Johnston will need money for a defense lawyer. I don't know what her finances are like, but I like to dream about the possibility of her selling out for some cash to pay her legal expenses. One can dream we'd be so lucky...

Anonymous said...

Hi Mary G,
I believe you are correct that the first story was that Bristol was out of school for mono, but we don't have documentation, (as far as I have seen) that Sarah, Bristol or anyone in the Palin camp said this.
It appears the mono story may have been a convenient rumor or a leaked rumor to explain her absence or changing schools/ towns. Wink wink.
But, what we do have is Sarah when asked about what Bristol was doing about school, was that she had finished early through some kind of on-line or correspondence courses.
So at one point she had finished early and now she has another class? Hmm. Finished early on the campaign trail while taking care of Trig, or when she was out with mono?
While Sarah is claiming indignation at her daughter and future son-in-law being referred to as "dropouts" (which they are), me thinks there is another reason.


Insurance issues if Bristol (she is 18 now) is not a student (either when she had Trig, or when this new one comes, or came)

Or, on the 6th we will all be focused on her soon to be in-law Sherry Johnston's court date.

Palin loves to do the "hey, look over there, a monkey wearing a top hat dancing the cha, cha!"

Or,maybe she's just losing it. Or maybe she does want us to focus on the fact that Bristol is not married and that has to bother her. Why she would not let McAllistar do her press releases on this stuff is even more confusing.
And as for Levi, he told the Associated Press (March 2008) that he was dropping out to go work the Slopes. Sherry Johnston was interviewed via telephone and confirmed that he was not in high school at this time and any further comments would have to come from him.
Why would he drop out in March and go to work and be working on on-line courses now? Why not just finish out your senior year? He wasn't going to have to be supporting Bristol and the new baby yet. Little Tripp would of only been a twinkle in his eye in March.
I think it is because Trig was born or about to be and they wanted to get him out of the picture so there could be less leaks. No interviews, no friends, no Bristol.
Get him a good job up there, without his HS diploma or equivalent. Never thinking far enough ahead that this action would be so scutinized.

And back to Bristol, if you finished high school early, why go back? Apply to college with your good grades.
Pathological lying is a very complex thing. Often embellishment of one lie to the next is overwhelmingly tempting and addictive. While you have to be clever and cunning to be successful it is still a non-truth and therefore there will always be a weak link.
So many things had to "disappear" after Sarah had her first inkling that she might be tapped after the governers convention that she had to make sure that any possible embarrassments would be hidden away.
Send Track to Iraq, Levi to the slopes, Bristol all over the place.
I really think it goes back to Sarah never thought it would be so closely looked at and that she and McCain would win and then nobody would dare look deeper into the situation. It simply backfired.
All said, I hold no ill feelings toward Bristol or Levi in any of this, they are merely victims of Sarah Palin. The truth would of been so easy. In fact, Bristol's or whoevers baby could of been merely a by-line in history, and maybe Sarah would of been VP.

Anonymous said...

If Bristol Palin wants privacy, I suggest she not sell photos of her baby for $300,000 (or for any money) to a celebrity magazine. Selling pictures of her baby puts her in the Celeb-u-Tramp category just like her peers those lovely Spears' sisters.

Anonymous said...

Nice observations, Wrisky. But don't forget that SP wields great power in Alaska (for now), and fear of her might keep lips sealed. I wonder if Gusty feels ill-used? She can't really spill the beans now without undermining her own credibility as a journalist. And that poor family doctor - her professional reputation must already be in tatters. How can she even attend a conference of her peers without feeling shame because she knows that they know she has compromised her professional ethics several times for SP? And if this whole thing blows up, where will Bill McAllister go?

Anonymous said...

If I were in Wassilla defending Sarah Palin I would feel very manipulated and taken advantage of. People have to know she thinks she is better and smarter than all of them. The fact that people still protect her when she has them all looking like fools is unbelievable. I can't believe she gets away with having these locals look like fools to the rest of the country. Alaska is a very sad place and obviously has very little regard for self respect or the truth. No one has enough intergrity to come forward with the truth about her multiple lies?
The good church goers, the hospital,local constituents, workers within her administration?
I used to think of Alaska as a beautiful majestic place with true salt of the earth people... boy that has changed!

Anonymous said...

If this woman really has all this power in Alaska then Alaska is a joke.

Anonymous said...

I'm puzzled: why are we worried about whether or when Bristol had this second baby?

The issue is Sarah Palin lying about giving birth to Trig.

Focus, people, focus!

Anonymous said...

Actually Wrisky makes a good point. Whoever sells the story first makes the money; the rest of them will lose the opportunity. Those of you in the know: are you reading this? The chance won't last forever. Soon, someone will beat you to the punch.

wayofpeace said...


THIS VIDEO is a clever way to illustrate how events in plain sight can be missed (by even the most astute among us) when we are deliberately misguided by manufactured--purposely distracting-- 'events'.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1/1, 7:08PM

"Diane, you need to read some of the background information on the Palin Deception Website. While it's true that older women have a greater chance of having a DS baby, more DS babies are born to younger women than older- because there are more younger women having babies."

You're making no sense statistically. Here's why:

Suppose one person has a coin and another person has a six-sided die. Which is more likely: the person tossing the coin to get heads, or the person throwing the die to get a 1--with each person getting one throw?

The person tossing the coin, of course.

Using your reasoning, the person throwing the die should get a hundred throws, before we decide which is more likely in the single event.

Anonymous said...

Why should we care about Trig's birth certificate?

We know Sarah Palin and her physician are lying about her giving birth to Trig.

If they produce a birth certificate, it can only be a forgery.

Lady Rose said...

I have to wonder what they were thinking naming the baby Tripp

According to the Urban Dictionary, Tripp: 1. To engage in sexual intercourse with, usually while drunk or out of pure infatuation. Another word for having sex, i.e. She got drunk and tripped with him after the party.
2. A noob of extraordinary proportions.

Were Bristol and Levi trying to send a spiteful message to Sarah Palin?

Did you see the news report this morning (Jan. 2) on CNN about the woman giving birth on the airplane? She was not in labor when she boarded the plane either. It ended with them saying all medical doctors recommend that women do NOT fly in their last trimester.

Interesting that no one mentioned that in the news coverage when discussing Palin's wild ride from Texas back to Alaska while leaking and potentially giving birth to a baby who may have needed immediate medical care when born.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

littl' me said... "statutory rape."

not in AK ...16 is the age of consent. just keepin' it real.

palin pregnancy truth said...

Audrey and co,

Will you do a new post explaining the representativeness heuristic? It is a psychological principle that explains why people make assumptions that are in contrast with statistics.

"People tend to judge the probability of an event by finding a ‘comparable known’ event and assuming that the probabilities will be similar.

As a part of creating meaning from what we experience, we need to classify things. If something does not fit exactly into a known category, we will approximate with the nearest class available.

Overall, the primary fallacy is in assuming that similarity in one aspect leads to similarity in other aspects."

People assume because the odds of having a downs baby increases with age that it fits with the "comparable known" - the mental idea of a mother of a downs baby. However, despite having lower odds of a downs baby under 35, there are MANY more babies born to women under 35. Despite the lower risk, the greater population of mothers under 35 means that 80% of babies with down syndrome are born to women under 35.

Here is an example:

I know someone who likes to read poetry. Is my friend more likely a truck driver or an Ivy League professor who teaches classic literature?

We'll make the assumption that EVERY Ivy league professor of classic literature likes ready poetry. There are 8 Ivy League schools and maybe 4 professors in each school's English department that specialize in classic literature. That gives us about 32 possible people. I'll even round that up to 34.

In 2006 there were 3.4 million truck drivers in America

If we assume that only .001% of truck divers like to read poetry (an underestimate even?) that still gives us 3,400 possible people.

Statistically that means that my friend is 100xs more likely to be a truck driver even if that doesn't fit with our "idea" of a truck driver.

Statistics mean Sarah Palin was more likely to have down syndrome baby but by no means does this exclude the possibility the Bristol could have a down syndrome baby. 80% of downs babies are born to women under 35.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @5:23 am

"The occurrence of Down syndrome per 1000 living births is approximately 0,5 for a woman under 25 years of age, 0,7 under the age of 30, 5 under 35 years, 25 under 40 years, and 34,6 for mothers over the age of 45. Still, against popular belief, most children with Down’s syndrome are born to young mothers: 51 % to mothers under 30, 72 % to women under 35." from

In your analogy:
"Using your reasoning, the person throwing the die should get a hundred throws, before we decide which is more likely in the single event" the younger women are actually getting the hundred throws. That is the point.

Anonymous said...

Wild Ride:

Someone has commented on another string about how Palin said she came home from Dallas "as scheduled." Then another time the water breaking, leave early stuff came out. Typical Palin: inconsistent stories.

I bet Bristol was induced to give birth on the night shift of April 17/18.

Sarah's office got plane tickets for the whole conference but Todd changed them, maybe way before the convention, so they would miss a reception and return at night when no one was looking for them. No one would have been watching Bristol's movements either. Maybe Bristol checked in at 4am on 4/17. Sarah's call to the doctor was to confirm plans for that night. -B.

Jen said...

palin pregnancy truth said...

OK, I agree with the need to respect Bristol's privacy.


She should have done this all along instead of saying, "Bristol is pregnant now, so the rumors about Trig can't be true".

January 1, 2009 8:05 PM


i couldn't agree more -- Sarah AND the media seem to be missing the point -- WE DONT CARE ABOUT BRISTOLS' NEW BABY -- we care only about Sarah & Trig.

So get this Palin-supporters and Palin-trolls -- All Sarah has to do is give the us irrefutable independently verified proof that she is Trig's mother and we'll leave her and her daughter and what comes out of them, ALONE.

That's what I dont get with the pro-palin people -- if she's got nothing to hide, why not give the proof? It would have been so much easier than throwing your drug-using 17-yo unwed HS dropout daughter and her HS dropout redneck drinking bf under the bus and under world scrutiny.

gee...let's see: I'll show a birth certificate and birth records, i'll even do a DNA test on TV (takes very little time) and that will shut up all those liberal moonbats and make me even more popular OR i'll just keep concocting ridiculous stories, deny, deny, deny, throw family under the bus with a smile on my face, demand privacy, call up magazines and demand they not call my daughter a HS dropout even though we told everyone a year ago she was out of school, sorta admit to nothing, and then demand privacy again...Yeah, #2 sounds good -- let's go with that one.

Anonymous said...

Gusty carpet squares:

Observant Preznit has pointed out that something is fishy about the carpet squares in the Gusty photo.

There's a rogue square behind Sarah's foot. I think it is part of a line coming from the door, but that line isn't correctly parallel to the others, as if the photo is squished at Sarah's feet.

Also, according to the carpet pattern, there should be a line of squares running between Gusty's feet. Not there.

Any thoughts? -B.

Anonymous said...

Church fire:

Someone had a theory that since records (only records?) were destroyed in the fire, it was arson to hide evidence of Trig's birth. I never saw the details of that theory. Anyone remember? -B.

Ivyfree said...

"You're making no sense statistically. Here's why:"
(cut for brevity)

Not at all. She claimed that Bristol couldn't be Trigg's mother because Trigg has Down's, and Bristol is only 18 now. I was pointing out that being 18 doesn't eliminate the possibility of Down's symdrome. It reduces the odds, it doesn't eliminate all chance. And if you toss that dice, you do have a shot at getting a 1.

There are more Down's babies born to younger women than there are born to older women. That's because there aren't as many older women getting pregnant. If older women and younger women were getting pregnant at the same rate, then there would be more DS babies born to older women.

Anonymous said...

Did Sarah ever say that Bristol finished her final semester by correspondence courses? I know I read that from a pro-Palin commenter on this blog, but I don't recall when Sarah said it. In fact, I was amazed that she was not asked about her kids' high school and (no) college educations, especially after she talked at the debate about having the same issues as others, such as how to pay for college. -B.

Anonymous said...

First - Audrey - fantastic job!

Next, though I remain anonymous, I'll profess a dirty secret about me, I dropped out and got my GED many moons ago.

Now, I only completed ninth grade, attending tenth and eleventh only spottily, I managed to walk in and pass the GED with zero study or prep at the end of what would have been eleventh grade for me in order to attend University when I would have been in twelfth grade for me chronologically. I was a bright kid, but I essentially missed three years of gaining High School *knowledge* and was able to pass - the test is just NOT that hard.

I really do not understand the term *correspondence* as used when describing either Bristol or Levi's method of study - if they are using an online curriculum to finish high school requirements, call it that. If they are studying online as GED prep, call it that. If they are studying via a snail-mail correspondence method then I understand the used of the term - but isn't that method in reality practically extinct?

It's only in the suspicious way that Sarah relates information that creates suspicion.

Anonymous said...

Reply to Diane:
I don't believe you can use Down's statistics to "prove" it either way. A mother under twenty has about a 1:2000 chance of delivering a Down's baby; a mother of forty about 1:90, so the chance, while much greater for the forty year-old, is still very low for both.

Whether you are Sarah or Bristol, you will either have a Down's baby or not, and the fact is, Downs babies are born every day to twenty year-olds, so I don't think in this individual case statistics are very helpful.


Anonymous said...

I think the issue of Trig's DS not pointing to Sarah rather than Bristol has been answered (yet again) very coherently and well.

In addition, the chances of a 16 year old getting pregnant are much, much greater than those of a 44 year old. 44 year olds do get pregnant, but more often do not, even when "trying." I've been told that IVF doctors won't use a 44 year old's eggs for artificial insemination but will insist on donor eggs. (Don't know highest age eggs they will use, 40?)

Not to get too graphic here but Sarah's move from used-to-be-mayor to learning the responsibilities of a governor, and her travel between Wasilla and Anchorage and Juneau, as well as moving kids to Juneau for school and then back to Wasilla, yada yada yada, suggests that she would have had fewer, not more, chances to create a baby. -B.

Anonymous said...

From a comment to another post:

Audrey is
"making enraged women feel sane."

Or, since we have some great male posters here,
Making enraged people feel sane since September 2008.

Bumper stickers, anyone?

Thanks again, Audrey. -B.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 1/2, 5:23 AM -
Your explanation of the statistics is not relevant to the situation at hand.
The only FACT we have is that a Down Syndrome baby was born. We don't know the actual mother's age and can't calculate the likelihood of a DS baby on that basis. Given that a DS baby was born, the empirical evidence shows us that he/she is MUCH more likely to have a younger mother than an older one, simply because far more babies are born to women under the age of 35.
About 80% of DS children are born to women under age 35, as has already been discussed on this blog on several occasions.
Just Google "Down Syndrome younger mothers" (or something similar) and you'll find many articles that discuss this common cause of confusion when considering Down Syndrome and maternal age.

Kat said...

AMEN, Jen! My three kids are now ages 18-24, and if anyone questioned their maternity, it would take me 2 minutes, max (if I were home), to pull out photographs showing me in a hospital gown holding an obviously new baby, and the birth certificates that I of course keep on hand as a responsible parent. You can set all of the other (compelling) evidence aside; to my mind, the ONLY remotely conceivably reason why Palin hasn't done this is because she can't.
I'm pretty sure I'm not stupid and I don't think I'm that naive about the games that powerful people play, but, like Audrey, I'm stunned by the audacity of the lies and the willingness of the media and public to go along with the whole sick charade.

Anonymous said...

Diane, You really need to do some reading before expressing an opinion with zero or limited facts. It makes you appear foolish.

Audry, IMO *EVERYTHING* related to the Palins is 100% fair game, in the past, present, and future. Why? She chose to put herself in the spotlight, more recently at the national level. All "CELEBRITIES" (including politicians) are in the public eye, and everyone in the public eye is fair game. (The laws even reflect this.) Palin can't pick and choose when it is convenient (or advantageous to her) to be "in the public eye" -- she is out there by her own choosing, and after she enters the arena there is no going back.

On top of that, SP highlighted her young daughter's pregnancy by parading her around at the RNC and her subsequent public "statement" (lie) about Bristol's pregnancy, ergo this particular issue has been underscored by Palin herself. She can't cry "foul" after the fact (see above).

You keep on keepin' on; you're doing a fabulous job.


Anonymous said...

This isn't even worth the breath, but, to Anon on this page who said there is no birth cert for BO or educational records: I was at Columbia when he was; he was editor of Harvard Law Review. I'd suggest there is mucho evidence of his educational history. And the SCOTUS just refused to hear two or three cases refuting BO's birth cert. Game over. Onward...

As a former member of the MSM, I simply can't explain why they did very little on the Palin's membership in the AIP or why they take all this other hooey spoon fed to them and just reprint it. My personal sense about the latest press release is that SP sounds kind of hysterical. BP certainly did not provide her own quotes. I mean, who writes "I can't imagine life w/t him but I don't recommend anyone in my shoes do this?" It's very odd.

Yes, she forgets her earlier lies about their schooling. They are drop-outs and for her to suddenly focus only on that means, as I've said earlier, that something else is afoot.

The "Eve" announcements (New Year's, Election) is her M.O. for a reason. But her PR wheels are falling off the bus. It's all very sloppy and reactive. She could have had a statement all in place, ready to go - simply hit SEND. But it's all helter skelter and it says volumes.

Keep up the good work Audrey. Soon, you might consider writing a formal letter to SP asking her for better proof of Trig's birth. Also, consider a "control" study where you place a pregnant woman next to a woman with a fake belly (pillow, band, whatnot) and then do the same photo analysis and see how it turns out. IOW, simulate the SP pix that seem so revealing. L.A. in S.F.

Gadfly said...

You can ask the ADN why it continues to do non-reporting about Tripp's birth.

wayofpeace said...

<< Anonymous said... Gusty carpet squares: Observant Preznit has pointed out that something is fishy about the carpet squares in the Gusty photo. according to the carpet pattern, there should be a line of squares running between Gusty's feet. Not there. -B.>>>

WHOA! i JUST saw that... THAT's indisputable evidence to me that something 'fishy' is going on with that picture.


Anonymous said...

More answers:

Palin hiding a Bristol/Levi pregnancy because of statutory rape has been ruled out, not just because of the age of consent, but also because the age gap between underage kids has to be bigger. If one or more parents are different as in younger or older, she might had hidden that.

The caption on flikr for 3Amigos does not date the picture. When the picture was uploaded, and the caption was created, McAllister did work for Palin.

Assumin,g as at least two commenters say, that there was an earlier Gusty picture and that the one we have was altered just to increase the baby belly, Gusty may not have realized that she was giving Factcheck an altered picture. She may have thought it was the original. She is unlikely to have remembered whether Sarah's belly was exactly this big several months before. And believing Trig was Sarah's would taint her memory.

I do think Factcheck and Gusty should answer for the altered picture, but Gusty has plausible deniability and isn't necessarily a dishonest journalist. -B.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

"Gusty carpet squares"...

SP's right foot? its odd.

But the real problem is NO squares for Gusty. Every part of the carpet has the doo-dads spaced with 3 lines and then the doo-dads recur in the pattern.

Also I think pic 1 and 2 were taken at the same time but from 2 different angles, based or where she is looking.


Splain that Lucy!

wayofpeace said...

B, says "There's a rogue square behind Sarah's foot. I think it is part of a line coming from the door, but that line isn't correctly parallel to the others, as if the photo is squished at Sarah's feet."

i just confirmed this.

using tracing paper over the picture, i placed a dot over the 4 white squares behing SP and near the door:

THAT line is not parallel to the others.

more proof that the image has been fooled with.

Anonymous said...

To Sarah,

Now is the time to come clean, to 'fess up. Don't leave the Trig/Tripp deception to black ball you when you run for Senator. Make it old news by then.

Let people vote for you or not based on your experience and policies (none of which, by the way, I agree with) and charisma.

You are digging the hole deeper and deeper. Stop, breathe, see that you are in over your head. You are even putting words in Bristol's mouth in a press statement. If there's no Tripp yet, you are making her a liar on the record as well. That's worse than high school drop-out. (And little Tripp will always have a false birthday, even birthyear.)

I personally would never vote for you, and the truth will lose votes for you now -- while there is no election. You are young. You have time to recover. Some people who would have voted for you still will, and some people who wouldn't before might change their minds if they saw how far you went to protect your daughter or to see that a DS baby had a fair shot at life. You never know. But I do know that unless you stop digging, the ending will not be pretty for you or your family. -B.

Anonymous said...

hello .. a little off this subject but i havent seen mention of it on this blog .. have you guys seen Sarah Palin's new year's even interview on The Hour?
youtube has it under this title
The Hour w/George Stroumboulopoulos : Governor Palin Interview Part 2

When asked about the hate messages towards obama by some at her rallies.. she flips the tables and says well.. obama and biden had the same.. she just makes my head spin

sjk from the belly of the plane said...


I have done the same thing with other parts of that pic. Like the left side of the door behind SP.

The right side is fine, the left side not so much! It angles inward, too "far to the right". How ironic!

palin pregnancy truth said...

More on statistics. Feel free to correct me, its been a while since I took a stats class.

It used to surprise me that my mom had 5 sisters before she was born. I said to my dad, "What are the odds that my mom would have been born a girl!"

"50/50 or 1 in 2" My dad replied.

That blew my mind as a little kid but now I get it. The prior pregnancies did not effect the current pregnancy odds. Each one is still a 50% chance.

However, the odds that my grandma would have 6 girls is 1/64 or 1.6%.

The statistics change drastically if we reframe the question.

So perhaps my logic is off, but based on the birth statistics that 80% of downs babies are born to women under 35 and 20% to women over 35, a child with down syndrome has a better odds of being born to Bristol since she falls in the first category and Sarah the second (80 vs 20).

The odds that if Sarah got pregnant at age 44 she would give birth to a downs baby are about 1 in 40. If Bristol was pregnant she would have a 1 in 2000 chance of having a down syndrome baby.

But this isn't quite what we are asking, is it? We want to know who is more likely to have given birth to a down syndrome baby, not what are the chances if each of them were pregnant.

Its like when my grandma was pregnant with my mom. The odds of my mom being a girl don't change (50/50). However the odds of having 6 girls is 1/64.

If both Sarah and Bristol were pregnant at the same time, Sarah has a higher chance of delivering a downs syndrome baby 1/40 vs 1/2000. However a downs syndrome baby being born in the Palin family is 2xs more likely to be born to someone under 35 (aka Bristol).

I dunno, maybe I'm going crazy. Someone smarter than me and with more stats experience should comment but I don't think the "stats" prove anything.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

wayofpeace, good catch! not even close to being parallel with the rest of the pattern

Anonymous said...

If you apply for a passport, you need to provide a BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

If you apply for a driver's license, you need to provide a BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

If you apply for a social security number, you need to provide a BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

So, while Alaska may be one of the few states that does not consider birth certificates a "public record", PLEASE do not tell me they are private "family matters".
If Gov Palin produced a valid certified (with raised official seal) birth certificate for Trig, I would be satisfied that, as she says, "I am the mom". Until then, I must assume she is not.


wayofpeace said...

the anomaly of the carpet is by far the most compelling and clear evidence of manipulations of picture #1.

someone should contact FACTCHECK and ask that they disavow the veracity of that image.

Kay said...

I’m staying strong with my conspiracy theory of Trig’s birthparents are Track Palin & Sherry Johnston…! Also my little countdown to Jan. 6th and the first court date of Sherry Johnston is…4 days to go! It should be interesting to watch, so stay tuned!

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

someone needs to call out Gusty AND her station out on this. I have some time today to e-mail my thoughts and a picture to the involved parties. Suggest others do the same.

Anonymous said...

Once memorable info is out, later corrections often don't change the memory. For example, Bill Clinton didn't hold up LA Airport for a haircut, but since the truth came out later than the widely-reported story that he did, most people still think his plane delayed other flights just for a haircut.

Similarly, Palin let the birth info seep out through Aunt Colleen and the media jumped on it and broadcast it and even Rachel Maddow gave best wishes to Tripp and so on. The fact that there's not a standard announcement with typical info and there's no proof, or any of the other things Audrey has rightly pointed out as farcical, probably mean no baby yet. But even if the media reported that now, I bet 80% of the public if asked would still say, and believe, that Bristol already had her baby. -B.

Anonymous said...

Anybody notice the Chuck Heath connection between the birth stories? He said Sarah's water broke, he said Tripp had been born. He always seems to be trying to manage/control the flow of information, and then Sarah has to scramble to cover it up. Or Sarah is using him as a diversion to create layers of stories and coverups. The possibilities are endless.

Anonymous said...

If were Andrea Gusty or Cathy Baldwin right now, I'd be calling the other to figure out a way for us to jointly come clean on our roles in the deception. Those two have the most to lose professionally when this all gets exposed (other than Sarah herself), and they still have a chance to save their careers. For Gusty, it could even be a career-enhancing move.

I actually feel sorry for the two of them; I think their involvement was unwitting at the beginning and now they are caught up in a fraud they could never have imagined.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the carpet under Gusty's feet, you can see parts of the lines under each foot. She appears to be standing on the lines. However, the line under Palin is not parallel. It is out by quite a bit.

Punkinbugg said...

Holy Moly -- no white dots under Gusty.

Patrick? Kathleen? Do you see the fuzzy pixels around her right leg and the hallway baseboard, as well as her right elbow, too?

wayofpeace said...


there are actually 2 rows of white squares/dots missing from where GUSTY is standing.

by using tracing paper over the zoomed area, it seems like her shoes are exactly under where the white squares should be according to the pattern.

sue said...

Can we all agree on these points?:

1-Bristol was taken out of school for 5 months beginning around Dec 2007.
2-Levi left school in March 2008 (no doubt due to the birth of baby Trig)
3-After Sarah realized Trig had DS she decided to pull a "Desperate Housewives" pretending to be pregnant and making her surprise announcement at around that same time. Heroic story #1.
4-However, medical complications required that Trig go to the hospital on or around April 18 leading to the heroic airline story that SP couldn't resist making up. Heroic story #2.

Other than this, we have nothing to corroborate a new baby and it will be more effective as Audrey says to focus on the lack of evidence that SP gave birth to Trig. The rest will flow naturally.
As an earlier poster mentioned, none of this would have come into question without SP's heroic tales.

Anonymous said...

No, the dots on the floor in pic #1 DO line up. The apparent lack of parallel is the result of representing three dimensions in a two-dimensional image.

Draw a line through every row of dots on the floor. The lines all meet at a "vanishing point" just above Gusty's head. So true, the lines are not parallel in the photo, but are parallel on the carpet.

And, if you look closely, it is clear that Gusty is standing almost exactly on dots; those dots aren't missing, but are hidden by her feet.


Anonymous said...

I am squarely in the camp of those who think the Trig birth story is a hoax. However, I believe you are wrong about the carpet in Photo 1. I have looked at it quite carefully today and previously, and have blown it up and lightened it and analyzed it closely. The reasons you don't see the pattern between Gusty's feet are that 1) she is standing on the white blobs closest to the camera (which are slightly visible on the inner side of each foot) and 2) she is wearing wide-leg pants, and the two pants legs are slightly overlapping each other and are obscuring the view of the carpet between her legs and behind her. If you lighten the image, you will see this more clearly. Please don't contact the station about this -- it will undermine the credibility of all the careful work being done to analyze these photos.

Anonymous said...

sjk and wayofpeace:

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I've been wondering if I was crazy to still be analyzing photos. The sort-of birth announcement has distracted us. But see the carpet in Gusty, the hobbit in 3Amigos.

Since Palin operates in a parallel universe, why didn't we think of checking parallel lines sooner?!

Media who are reading: Why did an altered photo even exist for Gusty to give to Factcheck??? -B.

Anonymous said...

Connecting the "missing dots" and the "wrong angled" dots is way too compelling to not pursue. It requires NO further enhancement of the image to show the missing part of the pattern between Gutsys feet, and draw a line thru the dots near the door and its at the wrong angle compared to the other lines in that area.

Let the explanations begin.

Audrey should ask for a partial refund from the PS expert!

Anonymous said...

No, the carpet squares are fine in "3Amigos."

Look at the row that is almost exactly horizontal along the bottom of the photo (which one might call a diagonal row if one is focussed on the rows going the other way):

--The "rogue" spot behind SP's foot is the continuation of the row that is behind her leg and runs under the door behind her.

--Gusty has her feet on two spots, one under each foot. You can see a tiny speck of each one peeking out from under her soles.

I wish it were true, a spot missing, but it ain't.


Again, SP might have made this or that fair game for us, but is she calling the shots on OUR behavior? I sure hope not. She can leave this door and that door open, she can DESERVE to have people walk through the doors, but we do not have to walk through them. We can stick to our own principles no matter how low she sinks. And I continue to suggest we leave everyone but SP out of it.


The oft-mentioned point about greater probability of DS for older mothers yet more DS births to young mothers: you don't have to believe us, the people on this blog. The DS society says so as well:

Look at last sentence under "Cause."

--Amy the first

wayofpeace said...


i traced a rectangle from the trim of the door at the wainscot to the top, and i find that the length at the top is larger than at the bottom.

what's odd is that the opposite should be the case since (in my estimation) the focal point of the camera is just about level with the eyes of SP and GUSTY, and these are nearer to the wainscot (1/3 of the length) than to the top.

thus, according to the rules of perspective, the length at the bottom should be larger since it is closer to the camera lens.


Whitney said...

Unfortunately, Sarah Palin made Bristol, and her supposed newborn baby, fair game.

One, SP could have put her family first and declined the VP offer knowing the challenges she had with a special needs baby and an expecting teenage daughter. Lots of people, both men and women, decline promotions when they involve increased demands on time or increase in travel or moves to another city when members of their families are going through a difficult time. Many politicians refrain from seeking an even higher office, say going for that Senate seat, when it means an increase in stress and scrutiny on their family at a time that is difficult for one or more family members. It's called putting one's family first.

Second, she could have left Bristol and Levi back in the comforts of Wasilla. She could have put out a statement upon accepting the VP slot stating that her oldest daughter was pregnant with her first child and would be much more comfortable out of the prying eyes of millions of people and not traipsing around the country on buses and planes. Everyone would have understood that. Just leads one to think that she had to drag Bristol along on the cross-country journey because she was the one breast feeding Trig, but I digress . . .

Third, to refute the rumors about Trig, she could have produced a birth certificate and/or other independent corroboration that Trig was born when and to whom she says and squelched that nasty business straight away. Instead, she explicitly used Bristol and announced her supposed five-month pregnancy to swat away those questions about Trig.

Fourth, she still intends to seek higher office whether the US Senate and/or POTUS in 2012. She touts her super-mom abilities as her qualifications for office. Thus, it is only fair that we examine those qualifications closely. Can you imagine the giant heap of scorn she would pile on any political opponent of hers with family members in this situation - unwed teenage pregnancy, high school dropouts, drug dealing parents. Good grief - the mind reels at what those rallies would look and sound like.

Fifth, we hear about this supposed new baby from People magazine! Not a statement from the Governor's office, not a report from the ADN or the AP. And further rumors about an exclusive story for $300 grand! And the Governor is calling in to People mag? And SP is talking about privacy? WTF?

Sixth, I must mention a personal bugaboo. SP went out of her way when announcing Bristol's pregnancy to state that Bristol and Levi would get married before the baby was born, no doubt to assuage the sensibilities of the religions voters - her voters. But they didn't get married. They've had plenty of time for a wedding. And Levi tattooed Bristol's name on her ring finger so surely his commitment isn't a problem. And we saw not long ago at all Bristol high-tailing her pregnant self into church services. This woman - through her political aspirations - wants to foist her faux-Christian values on all the rest of us. The hypocrisy is killing me.

Thank you so much Audrey for this website and blog and all your time and efforts on this matter. It is important.

Jen said...

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

"Gusty carpet squares"...

SP's right foot? its odd.

But the real problem is NO squares for Gusty. Every part of the carpet has the doo-dads spaced with 3 lines and then the doo-dads recur in the pattern.

Also I think pic 1 and 2 were taken at the same time but from 2 different angles, based or where she is looking.


Splain that Lucy!

January 2, 2009 8:18 AM


sorry guys -- there are circles under gusty's feet -- she has on flair leg pants they are obscuring the line of circles behind her, but there are 2, mostly covered white circles under her feet.

i am the resident expert on these 2 photos right now, and I can attest, I have checked this out and the circles are there...

but do not fret, i have not given up on these photos and if there's more to these, we'll get them figured out

keep looking for things tho :) i may miss something

Littl' me said...

I have a T-Shirt with many sayings on it. One of them, I would like to use to give a little advice to SP:


wayofpeace said...


i agree with you on the white dots and GUSTY's feet.

HOWEVER, take a look at the 4 white dots AND the dark blue stripe to the right, and it's obvious that they converge. THAT does not happened anywhere else. they should run parallel.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

Truthseeker2, you look to be right about the gusty dots but the dots by the door are still not at the right angle...will look more closely.

One more thing about the pic 2 EXIF data. Did they use a tripod? 1/2 second is not a hand-holdable exposure time, and if they DID use a tripod why the ISO 400 setting?
ISO 100 would yield far better results....



vonrupert said...

IMO as an artist and a photographer, the lines in the Gusty photo are correct. They follow the rules of perspective as they should.
Palin, however, does look odd in the photo (focus). Gusty is standing on the two lines and obscuring them.
If only Palin would provide the proof she could so easily give if it really existed. Then we could stop thinking about all this crazy!

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Kimosabe. I see that Gusty's feet and pants could hide that line of squares. But I don't think the angle of the rogue square's line is explained by perspective.

Look at the row (left to right) of squares running through Palin's feet. Look at the spacing. The rogue square is off.

I understand that perspective changes appearances, but it should have changed those square positions similarly. The others stay spaced for the picture. That one doesn't.

BTW, I don't understand the idea of perspective making the lines intersect over Gusty's head. Wouldn't they intersect somewhere to the left of the photo, somewhere the photographer stands?

Let's keep looking and thinking. -B

Patrick said...

Our magnificent Jen has done another collage with the "three amigos" layed over each other, this time with Dan Carpener directly after SP.

And surprise, surprise - she still looks like a hobbit.

I am still scratching my head on the white dots issue in the Gusty picture...I think we need somebody to do some kind of CAD graphic in order to finally prove it.


Anonymous said...

You would have thought that Mercedes would have been way excited by the fact that Bristol's babe was due around the date of her own birthday, wouldn't you? Narry a mention of that from her or from her brother - I wonder why? Perhaps because they knew that Bristol's babe was not due until the New Year?

Anonymous said...

OK, I had to check the lines/dots on the pic, too.
I am not sure about the ones underneath Gusty - they could be obscured by her feet.
What caugth MY eys is the lines of dots beneath/behind *SP*: All of a sudden, they change direction! Specifically, SP is standing on the edge of a dot, and then all of a sudden, on *her* left side, they have changed direction ever-so-slightly - it is as if the dots that should be coming out to her left were moved over by almost 1/2 space.

vonrupert said...

If any would like to see photos of Bristol on Dec. 15 going into church service. I clipped 2 shots from the video and they are posted here...

Anonymous said...

BIRTH CERTIFICATE - If there is an adoption by Sarah and Toddy, Sarah would be listed as the mother. If it takes time for a birth certificate to be issued as a result of an adoption, that could explain any delay in Sarah providing a birth certificate.
If Trig born on a different date than the one alleged by Sarah, the correct date of birth should be on the birth certificate. My guess is the date issue is why no one has seen the birth certificate for Trig.

Social Security numbers are routinely issued as part of the birth registration process through the hospital at the time of birth and are typically received within a few weeks by the parents.

The exception is when there is a question of parentage, an adoption or the parent declines the automatic issuance procedure. In these cases a birth certificate, id and parent's id is required to apply for an original Social Security number.

Anonymous said...

Has this photo of Bristol Palin in September 2008 been catalogued already by someone on this site?

If you go to Google images, and type in "Bristol Palin," quite a few come up. Bristol reached a threshold of celebrity, and was photographed a lot during the campaign....thanks to the Palin parents and the RNC's strategy to make her a celebrity/campaign calling card.

As a comparison, when you go to Google images and type in your own name, how many photos pop up which have been shot by newspapers and professional entertainment photographers hired by a media company?

Any entertainment/media lawyers out there could tell you that Bristol Palin as a public figure has now crossed into the "public domain" territory.

Enough news stories with headlines have been written about her and enough photos have been taken of Bristol Palin as a separate news entity that a creative writer could now write a play, book, TV movie or novella about her "public life," use her real name as part of the title, and cite facts from existing news stories as sources! Especially once these new Tripp baby photos are sold....

Please understand: they would not have to do any investigating AT ALL and could use existing news stories, cite facts up from pre-existing news articles up to a certain word limit under the "Fair Use Law," and be on their way.

Patrick said...

Regarding the carpet on the Gusty pic:

I made a test with MS Paint, which is of course a rather primitive program, but I could not detect an anomalie.

See here:

I am of course happy if anybody proves me wrong, but my view so far is that this is a dead end.


palin pregnancy truth said...

Patrick, nice work with the latest additions to the flickr page. Do we know what the cameraman's name is? Maybe we could prove that he was somewhere else April 13th. Is he credited for his work anywhere?

lilybart said...

Kat, you are correct. I had a c-section and I have photos of me hooked-up to machines, holding my new baby. Lot of these photos.

The other explanation is that Palin was SO NOT THRILLED by the DS baby that no one took pictures and the whole time she was pg she was upset that this had happened to HER and nothing was going to stand in the way of her speech and career, even if the baby she didn't want was in jeopardy.

Anonymous said...

Copy and paste picture #1 into pc paint program.

Then you can use lines to connect all rows of dots. Connect dots in both directions.

The "up" lines all connect at a perspective point at the very top center on Gutsy's head.

The dot by Sarah's right foot does connect to the three partial dots by the door.

The grid created (by connecting all the dots) looks correct.

Prior to making grid it did look like dots were not lined up correctly.

wayofpeace said...

but PATRICk, you DID get the proof.

look at the area behind SP and the DOOR.

see how the white dots VEER away from the red, grid line!!!!

Anonymous said...

Seriously? Even Rachel Maddo reported this story as the truth by wishing Tripp all the best? Seriously?
Where in the world are any real journalists, any trustworthy investigative reporters? If Sarah Palin phoned in a story that aliens had landed in her front yard, would every mainstream newspaper in American simply print that too, without verification?

Anonymous said...


Thanks for your flickr photo with the lines painted in. You are almost always right about photos, but before I give in:

I measured off (with two points on paper) the left to right distance between the front to back lines of white squares. I found the distance between the two lines Sarah's feet are in to be very slightly shorter than the distance between any other two lines. Those lines do seem parallel, but too close together.

I don't think the carpet is a dead issue/end quite yet. And ignore my earlier question on perspective. I figured it out. -B.

mc said...

Looking at Patrick's comparison of the real April 13 photo and the headshot of Sarah from the 3 Amigos, it looks to me as if the cross/whatever of the necklace in the real April 13 photo hits much higher on Sarah's neck, as if it were a different necklace. The cross/whatever looks different, too, but that's harder to tell. The length of the chain is definitely different, though.

Anonymous said...

Patrick & Jen, are Palin and McAlister at similar distances from the camera in the 2007 interview photo to do the same overlay thing there, to see if she again looks like a hobbit next to him?

ocean said...

This site raises more questions about Levi's apprenticeship.

The Alaska Standard

Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization’s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.

Alex said...

As for hands-off poor young Bristol:

Today on my Yahoo home page I woke up to this news headline:

Bristol Palin says becoming a teen mother 'not ideal'

That means the Governor's office has issued a press release, and that Bristol Palin is now their public spokesperson on teen pregnancy.

Here's the article:

Anonymous said...


is interesting.

palin pregnancy truth said...

To Patrick and Kathleen,

Forgive me if this has been discussed already. I just reviewed the photos of the Three Amigos pic next to the KTUU pic from April 13th.

Initially, I thought the necklace was a red herring and that we just couldn't see it in the low resolution picture. Why delete a the cross necklace in one photo but not the other?

My belief is that the photos posted on flickr were staged. Sarah tried to match her outfit as much to that day (and perhaps even that picture) as possible. She grabbed the same jacket (which much looser in the KTUU pic), pin, and glasses. She then sported the pregnancy suit. However, she forgot the necklace and instead wore a cross instead of the original star necklace.

The 3 Amigos pic it clearly looks like a cross. The Gusty pic has no necklace. And the actual, verified pic has a STAR necklace.

This would explain their need to retouch staged pictures (or at least only the gusty pic). They only edited around the neck to delete the cross in case anyone pulled an actual pic from that day.

This could also be why the gusty pic was sent to media and the amigos pic was not.

We should send this info into

Anonymous said...

A matter of life and death

Why it matters

Sarah Palin thinks the war in Iraq, which killed (murdered) over 4,000 American young men, was a mission from God.

Please America, dont say it isnt important that we expose this dangerous woman.

Anonymous said...

Patrick - just saw your JPEG ghost experiment on the Flickr site. I've read Farid's paper that inspired you, and am really curious about what his technique would show on this particular photograph.

I'm not sure though whether your manipulation really did the trick as far as exposing JPEG ghosts. As I understand it, you've got to create a new image based on the difference between the "original" and the one saved at a lower value (actually create a series of such images because there is a shifting factor that my obscure the ghost for some values). I don't even have photoshop, much less an understanding of the JPEG compression algorithm, but I'm guessing that the skills, knowledge, and tools required would not be all that hard to come by, especially in, say, the CS department of an reasonably large academic institution. The method seems straightforward to implement and the results are easily seen with the naked eye.

Anonymous said...


Thanks to whoever first noticed the strangeness in the carpet pattern. Here is the original photo with lines drawn through the center of the white squares to the vanishing points. As was pointed out in another post, there are two different vanishing points, one on the left of Palin (blue lines) and one on the right (red lines). This is NOT normal. There should only be a single vanishing point for all those lines, assuming the carpet pattern is continuous behind Palin.

The squares hidden by Gusty's legs are indicated by lighter (pink) lines. I hope this helps.

Audrey, could you not post this comment in the comments section, but rather download the image from image shack and re-host it? Thanks. I want to be as anonymous as possible and don't want to post the imageshack link.

And I would rather you see this image rather than having it pop up in the comments.

Also, the lines look clearest if the image is views at full size.

The Vanisher

Anonymous said...

Since the issue of the necklace(s) has come up again on this post, I'll reiterate a comment I made earlier under "Photoshop Report" - maybe some of the photo sleuths can do something with this info:

For what it's worth, when you enlarge the photo accompanying the ADN story about SP's Vogue shoot, you get a good view of the star necklace that she also seems to be wearing in the KTUU screenshot from April 13 and MAYBE in the 3 Amigos photo.
Here's the link:

wayofpeace said...


2 vanishing points:
THAT is impossible.

it violates the law of optics.
and the RULES of perspective.

an an artist, i've drawn hundreds of perspectives: this is impossible.


i don't want to overdo this BUT, in VANISHER's image, we CAN tell that the line created by the lines crossing all the center-points of the white shapes:

at the area of interest--by the door--3 of the shapes veer off from the center line. it is the ONLY place where that happens.

Anonymous said...

@ ANON 12:58 pm


I agree with you and I am sure many do.

However, please remember that the unjustified war in Iraq is also responsible for the murder of several millions of innocent civilians and not only 4000 American soldiers.

No, Sarah Palin, that was not and that's not God's mission. You should be ashamed of yourself.

See, Sarah Palin, America and the rest of the world is waking up. Have you noticed even your "Base" is shrinking.

Yes, it matters to expose Sarah Palin, more than ever.
Anon at 12:58 pm wrote:
A matter of life and death

Why it matters

Sarah Palin thinks the war in Iraq, which killed (murdered) over 4,000 American young men, was a mission from God.

Please America, dont say it isnt important that we expose this dangerous woman.

wayofpeace said...

NOW, let me qualify:

in this picture there will be 3 vanishing points. (well 4, but that one is for the diagonal wall on the left, where the frames are).

and these are where:

1- ALL the white shapes vanish

2- the hallway walls vanish

3- all the vertical lines vanish.

i've taught perspective drawing in college, and one of the assignments i've given is to take a photo and overlay it with tracing paper and identify the vanishing points.

what picture 1 is showing is not normal!

Anonymous said...

@ANON at 8:34 am


I haven't watched the interview but it doesn't surprise me. That's typical Sarah Palin.

However, in general, I am very shocked about the reporters' response to SP.

I watched the interview with Matt Lauer. Used to like him before, but not after that interview. Gawd, couldn't he ask some good questions and dig a little deeper? He could, but he didn't. Why??

Now, did George Stroumboulopoulos tell her that Barack Obama and Joe Biden never ever said anything bad about her, nothing to incite hatred and violence at their campaigns. A good reporter should ask her right away " allright give me an example: date, place, where and when Obama or Biden's speech did ever incite hatred and violence?"

Sarah Palin is such a liar. Nobody screamed things like "off with her head" at Obama or Biden rallies. This woman has no heart, really. I felt so sorry for Obama's wife and his daughters then. Did Sarah Palin care about them? Of course, not. And she calls herself Christian? What a joke!

The only reporter I can think of and he will really truly interview her, is Keith Olbermann at MSNBC. Guess what? Sarah Plain is so afraid of having interview with Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow:-| Well, you know why..
Keith Olbermann once said " Governor Palin, you are a fraud"

Oh BTW Keith Olbermann did talk about Sarah and Todd Palin's association with Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), a while ago though, before the election.

Anonymous said...
hello .. a little off this subject but i havent seen mention of it on this blog .. have you guys seen Sarah Palin's new year's even interview on The Hour?
youtube has it under this title
The Hour w/George Stroumboulopoulos : Governor Palin Interview Part 2

When asked about the hate messages towards obama by some at her rallies.. she flips the tables and says well.. obama and biden had the same.. she just makes my head spin

January 2, 2009 8:34 AM

wayofpeace said...

OOPS, sorry, i hit the send button too quickly,

the white dots and the diagonal wall share the same vanishing point.

Patrick said...


Great work!! I have uploaded your pic with the vanishing points and your comments to my flickr stream. I cannot claim to be an expert in perspective, but that´s highly interesting.

Anon at 1:48:

This is the best shot I could get of the necklace in the "three amigos" picture (with a professional zoom program which "straightens" the pixels after zooming):

To me it seems that the necklace is the same like in the KTUU pic (looks very much like a star).

anon at 1:00

I am very much a beginner at detecting photo fraud yet, and it would be great to get assistance in this respect. The picture with the JPEG quality on 30% was just the first try. I think that the result looks very strange, although I cannot say that this is conclusive, of course.

I would urge anyone to investigate these issues with photoshop and other programs, too.

You will need:
- Photoshop CS4
- ClearID Vers. 2.0

The trial versions of both programs can be downloaded for free.


Patrick said...

One important thing I would like to add:

The Palin children are celebrities, because they act like them, willingly - regardless of the fact that they are teenagers.

Would you like to see some proof?

Here are Willow and Piper giving autographs - just like real celebrities:

I guess that Palin family would loose any lawsuit in which they claimed not to be "celebrities".

Therefore we can talk about them and their pregnancies - openly.


Whitney said...

Bingo! I think the discrepancy in the necklace is the nail in the coffin proving the big belly prego pictures were staged/composited/fake as all get out. Nobody changes their necklace in the middle of the workday. It is clear as day that in the KTUU footage she is wearing a star with a dark center and in the Three Amigos fiesta she is wearing a gold cross. Done deal.

The photos of Piper and Willow giving autographs are priceless!

Anonymous said...

I'm no Photoshop expert, but something funny is going on with those 2 photos that I didn't notice before. When I clicked on each photo for an enlarged view, I noticed something that I hadn't noticed before: Photo #1, Sarah's black outfit and the reporter's black pants appear heavily pixellated (don't know what else to call those rectangular splotches. They appear as different shades of black squares and rectangles). However, the photos on the walls, the carpet don't show the same pixel-splotches. Some splotches show up on the black camera bag, but not on the cameraman. Other problems with the photo: the door is wider at the top than the bottom, making one wonder just how tall the photographer was-- by photographer, I mean the person who took the picture of them. The photo could have been taken by someone on a ladder, or by holding the camera over one's head, but check the angle, it's much higher than the people in the photo. Why go to all that trouble? Looking for pixels in photo #2,the same rectangular splotches show up on Sarah's black jacket again, but no place else, her face is more pixellated, looks different from the faces of the two men making it appear that the photo of Sarah is somehow "inserted" in there-- the pose is awkward, people in front of each other do not cast shadows, and both men look straight into the camera while Sarah's gaze is someplace else. Don't know if the same splotches will show up on other computers, never noticed them before, but I applaud all of those who are doing such great detective work! Hope people with more tech-abilties turn something up. Happy New Year!

Anonymous said...


Perhaps NE could send some reporters to Hawaii to interview Mercede/Sadie Johnston(Levi Johnston's sister).
It seems she and some friends are going to Hawaii for 2 sweeks (Feb 23th- March 8th)
Corey is a friend/boyfriend of Mercede/Sadie. That's at least the impression I get from his public Myspace page.

Colleen said...

There are no photos of Tripp because he hasn't been born yet. That is why Sarah is making such a big deal about the statements about Bristol & Levi's (lack of) education. She never cared about previous posts concerning the dropouts. All the nonsense that will be forthcoming about such issues as their education are a smokescreen to keep Sarah's non believers distracted from seeking verification of Tripp's birth- which she can't provide...yet.

Anonymous said...

Patrick, in your "grid" picture it seems like the spots in the fifth row from the left (the row that is mostly hidden by SP's legs) do deviate from the straight line when they get to the door behind her. Is that how it looks to you?

Thanks to everyone for providing such interesting pictures today!


Craig said...


You have to put things in realistic perspective. Palin is not going to produce documents, photos and (live on TV???) DNA testing anytime soon.

Why? Because there is NO compelling reason or pressure on her to do so. You have a handful of blogs that are wanting to push this conspiracy angle, but, by and large, the media and the public either believe Sarah's story or give her the benefit of any doubt and have accepted it. You don't even see any privately-funded political action groups working to push a conspiracy narrative into public view, and thus bring down a leading Republican figure for 2012 or beyond.

So how dumb politically would it be for her to essentially "kick a sleeping dog", set up a televised press conference and say "Hey, there are a few internet blogs that don't believe Trig is my baby, so here is the certified birth certificate, and a panel of first-hand witnesses to his birth, and the Head Administrator of the hospital, and some Ob/gyn's to defend my decision to fly home from Texas right before giving birth, and, oh yeah, I'm gonna have our precious Trig submit to a DNA test, here on TV! You betcha!!"

First of all, REGARDLESS of how convincing her little TV show actually was, most of the Country would wonder what the hell was going on? Then they would start wondering, "Wow, I didn't even consider this to be a problem, but she sure has suddenly made a huge deal about this, so something must be wrong. I wonder what else about her might also be fishy?"

And now the media starts beating on her about a bizarre press conference that seems meant to desperately proclaim her innocence over an issue that they haven't been even pushing her on. Now the stories become all about Sarah's paranoia, weird behavior, and suddenly news stories begin getting into what real issues in her personal or professional life she may be hiding.

And this is just what would happen even if she gave conclusive PROOF that Trigg was her son!!!

This is how the world works.

So, tell me again just how this tell-all, high-profile press conference would be in Palin's best interest?

Anonymous said...

Palin Pregnancy Truth, you say, "The 3 Amigos pic it clearly looks like a cross. The Gusty pic has no necklace. And the actual, verified pic has a STAR necklace."

I see the 3Amigos necklaces as a star, not a cross.

I think all photos of Sarah were taken the same day. I think her hair and attire are the same. And that scenario requires the fewest co-conspirators.

I think the necklace was distorted in whatever alterations were done to Sarah in the Gusty photo, and had to be Photoshopped out lest it draw attention to the alterations.

I think differences in the length of the chain of the necklace are what happens in normal wear -- moving to the side or up or caught on clothing, etc. My 2 cents. -B.

Alicia said...

I just went to the immoral minority website and found photos of Bristol and Trig which then led me to google images to see where this photo might have been taken. The clothes match up for Bristol, Trig and Sarah to have been at the August 29 Dayton Ohio surprise announcement VP event which Sarah brought her family to (the following photo from immoral minority must have been a private photo shoot at some point that day) Here is the link from Dayton from Google images:
(it was a large link from google images that I put thru tinyurl)

The reason I posted that was because the immoral minority website posted some photos of Bristol with Trig at the same event from the side showing that she is still rather large compared to the svelte sidways Sarah and she is of course holding Trig. She does appear in this sideways photo as if she could be realistically 5 months pregnant(she certainly looks twice as big as Sarah did at 8 months, in any photo I've seen of her...), although in the accompanying photo at the convenience store in November Bristol does not look as large either in belly or face and the comments from the blogger point out the discrepancy. (link below)

so, is Bristol still showing some post pregnancy weight and then looks thinner in the November photo after losing said weight? Or is the entire second pregnancy another lie that will come out in time?
Also, I believe that the church photo published below on the website from Sunday December 14 when the Palins were going to the middle school for church since theirs was burned shows Sarah, Todd(with Trig) Piper and Willow, not Bristol. I believe that the image of the teen girl is Willow, not Bristol and if it is Bristol, then she looks even less pregnant than the November convenience store photo on immoral minority. So, the incredible shrinking pregnancy? I see no reason that Willow would not have been at church w/Mom and Dad and there is only one girl present, which I assume to be her as she looks to be the right age and not pregnant. Why would Willow, only a 14 or 15 year old girl not go to church service with such fervently religious parents? I'd bet it was Bristol that stayed home out of the limelight. Link following (see photo at bottom of photos)

I realize I am not progressing the investigation further by posting these inconsistencies, but I just keep finding inconsistencies and want to share them. I know with all of my heart that there is something fishy going on here and that it may never come out but I'll keep perusing data as time allows and put my two cents in. BTW, I wish I had a big pot of money to offer all of the "fringe" participants so that maybe they would spill their guts for profit, but alas it isn't so. I just hope to spy one of them (first family mother/grandmother/daughter) at the grocery store one day and you betcha, I'll whip out the camera phone and give you something concrete!

Whitney said...

Oh phooey false alarm - Patrick, I see your zoom of the necklace in the Three Amigos pic - looks like a star. Nevermind.

Anonymous said...

The Vanisher says, "Thanks to whoever first noticed the strangeness in the carpet pattern."

It was Preznit. WayofPeace and sjk in the belly of the plane stuck with it. Maybe there's something there. Worth trying!

The expert was asked to look for other types of discrepancies. -B

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Patrick for the photos on the flickr site. I hate to be a party pooper here, but there is another "leg" of the pendant, partially hidden behind the jacket collar -- in other words, one at top, two "arms" and two "legs" making it 5 pointed. If you copy Patrick's photo into a document where you can make adjustments to it, try it in B&W at a somewhat higher contrast, and look very carefully, and you'll see what I mean. Much as I would love for this to be a smoking gun, I don't believe it is. However, I do agree that the vanishing points analysis is pretty interesting.

Anonymous said...

What's wrong with Politico?

"Faded from view?"

"The top 10 weirdest moments of 2008"

Sarah Palin as Trig’s grandmother

For a time in late August, the left-wing blogosphere was atwitter with rumors that then-four-month-old Trig Palin was actually Bristol Palin’s baby and that Sarah Palin was engaged in a conspiracy to cover it up by pretending to be the baby's mother.

The evidence? Sarah Palin kept news of her pregnancy under wraps for a long period of time, and there was a handful of photos where the Alaska governor did not appear pregnant during the period in question.

Hardly smoking-gun-style evidence, but that didn’t stop the rumor-mongering. It wasn’t until the McCain campaign announced that Bristol herself was pregnant that the whole matter faded from view.

wayofpeace said...

ANON @ 3:03 PM,

you're right regarding the discrepancy of the door. i've measured the top and the segment of the door at wainscot height: the top is longer than the lower one.

this counters the fact that objects decrease in size the further they get from the observer. (think telephone poles).

the focal point of the camera is just about at the same height as the 2 women's eyes, placing it closer to the bottom than the top.

Anonymous said...

A little off topic but, the site:

will be publishing a new Dittman Research Poll this Sunday concerning Sarah Palin's current popularity here in Alaska. Word on the street is, the results are shocking.
keep it Audry and friends...the wheels on Sarah's bus to Palintopia, are awfully wobbly.

palin pregnancy truth said...

Is it worth contacting Andrew Halcro or Lyda Green? It seems that Palin forced Lyda out of her position and she does reside in Wasilla. Maybe she'd be willing to talk or at least explain why government photos got scrubbed.

There has to be SOMEONE in Alaska who can access the April 13th (or would it have aired on Monday the 14th) interview from KTUU that we have a screen shot from.

Craig said...

By the way, did anyone else see the brief story on CNN this afternoon regarding Sarah's recent comments to the press? There was a close-up clip of Bristol walking off of a plane, looking very, very pregnant! It looked like it was a old video from around October/November, during the campaign.

Anonymous said...

"However, please remember that the unjustified war in Iraq is also responsible for the murder of several millions of innocent civilians and not only 4000 American soldiers."

Off topic, but I'm glad this was brought up. Too many people forget the innocent Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush's invasion and occupation. To say nothing of the millions who have lost their homes. Okay, this is my last comment on this topic. /offtopic

Patrick said...

I am still scratching my head over the necklace (star or cross...?)


Yes, they might both be stars, but they still look different somehow!

But there are so many mysteries in this "tale of the non-pregnant looking governor who has been constantly misunderstood by everybody", sometimes you don´t know where to start...


sjk from the belly of the plane said...

anon said, "the door is wider at the top" sure is. that is one of the MANY problems with THAT pic!

Ivyfree said...

" Why would Willow, only a 14 or 15 year old girl not go to church service with such fervently religious parents?"

Menstrual cramps. First thought that crossed my mind. Kept me out of church events.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

Pic 2: dude on the right has a backlight glow on his shoulders.
BOTH shoulders. A ragged one at that.

BOTH DUDES are well lighted from the front, both have similar highlights on their foreheads.

SP has no such highlight and her clothes are TOO DARK for that lighting scenario compared to how well lit and detailed the dudes are. Even though she is wearing very dark clothes the dude on the left is so well lit that it doesnt match AND most camera metering systems will compensate for the center object... etc etc...

One more big thing in PIC 2, on SP's right side of her hair, just over her shoulder there is a "highlight".

Zoom in. The pattern pixels there are LARGER and go in the opposite direction of EVERY OTHER HAIR PIXEL. It's cloned, IMHO.

Anonymous said...

(1)My daughter is 29, my son is 27. We've moved 5 times since they were born. I could give you proof in about 2 minutes when and where they were born with a) photos of me in the hospital with their dad and various family visitors and 2) copies of their birth certificates.

It would take about 24 hours, but I could have a family member get into storage and get out the baby books with the hospital ID bracelets that are in their scrapbooks that have the date and time of birth, some paperwork from the hospital that I also put in the scrapbook (you other mom's, you know what I mean, all the tags on the bassinet, your door, anything with your baby's name on it, you take off and take home and put in the baby book!) and the ceremonial certificates that I got from the hospital (not the 'legal' one I later got from the county.


Kay said...

Thank you –B (01-02-09 at 8:20am)…I was thinking along the same lines yesterday and started writing this post yesterday but just finished it today. I admit, I had to sleep on it! Glad someone else was thinking the same thing and sorry “-B” if anything you stated is repeated in mine, I am too lazy to do all the cut and paste stuff this morning and double check…so here’s my “rant” to Ms. Palin:
Dear Ms. Palin, I am going to try and give you some “motherly” advice even though I am younger than you. First…it is okay that you got pregnant before wedlock. It happens all the time. I’m sure it was hard on you because of your religious beliefs…and you had your image to maintain but “little missy” you choose to have SEX…so therefore “IT COULD HAPPEN”! Now I’m sure Ma & Pa Heath were super duper pissed off at you…BUT I ALSO BET THEY GOT OVER IT! Good parents do that…don’t ya know…they deal with it the best they can and they go on living. Just because maybe you haven’t…doesn’t mean your children have to pay the price. And quit rebelling so much against your parents…YOU’RE OLD ENOUGH TO KNOW BETTER! Because if you don’t stop…your children will never stop rebelling against you! Children normally do as they see! I can see that you “SUPER” adore and admire your hubby Todd but he isn’t the only thing in your world! I’m pretty sure when you were “struggling” along…it was do as your told and raise those kids! But he didn’t know you had such ambitions (Be careful what you wish for…it just might come true) so now you just have too many things swirling around in your head so STOP! Please STOP…for a day and do nothing but think for yourself! Please! Todd wants you to work…he looks to me to be a BIG BRAT…and likes the fact that you are working now, so that he doesn’t have to. He will maintain the “TOUGHNESS” when needed and do the damage control because “that’s what you like”…probably turns you on. And that is all fine except…admit it to yourself… that is what is going on and GROW UP! I betcha your children would admire you a whole bunch if YOU put them first over your precious HUBBY. So you and only you…GET IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA…and fess up to the American public. Do it and you will recover from it…I could almost guarantee it! Think about it…do you know what would happen? I’ll give you my little theory: first – YOU WOULD GAIN BACK YOUR SELF PRIDE, second – YOU WOULD GAIN BACK THE RESPECT AND LOVE FROM YOUR FAMILY, third – YOU WOULD GAIN BACK THE RESPECT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, fourth – YOU WOULD BE OKAY! I know that for a few months (can’t say how many with the legal system and all)…it would be really, really hard and you would be in the news a whole bunch and you might even have to spend some time in jail and you probably will have to resign as governor of Alaska but aren’t you a tough cookie? Keep your children at Ma & Pa Heath’s house…I think they love you and your children and would protect them. In my opinion, it would be worth it…take your punishment, sell your story, have a new career of speaking engagements where you can earn a living (quite nicely), and live in PEACE and let others learn from your mistakes. I don’t hate you…it is like my beautiful Grandma says, “Sister, we don’t dislike anyone…we just don’t like what they do sometimes!” You can do it Ms. Palin and the rewards are numerous…you have the choice and REIGN IN some control in your own life and the lives of your children…DO IT FOR THEM BUT MORE IMPORTANT…DO IT FOR YOURSELF! You will recover…you might have to go to a different church and also become an independent in the political world. My plea to you is…think about it! From – Kay

Anonymous said...

I can't quite make up my mind if the two vanishing point analysis is correct or not. Maybe it's still possible to make all the rows of dots converge to a single vanishing point.

The problem is the fuzziness of the image. Drawing lines through the precise center of each white square is difficult. Maybe Patrick's idea is better: to construct the analysis lines by drawing them along the edges of the squares and not the center.

Like so many aspects of this image, it would be easier to see what's really going on by reviewing a higher-resolution image.

I hope that enough questions have been raised about this image that factcheck will re-check their facts! And retract their support of the veracity of this image until Gusty supplies the original, full-size image.

She really needs to clear the air, by producing the original picture as well as explaining how her pictures came to be on that Flickr account just after Palin's VP selection.

Lady Rose said...

I was discussing today with my hubby (a high school teacher) if Bristol and Levi would be considered high school drop outs - he said definitely.

When it comes to a job or college home schooling, correspondance courses, or a GED are not valued as much as a regular high school diploma.

There are too many things you can only learn while attending school - besides socialization, there is also working as a team member on group projects, debating your ideas, writing term papers, and much more that can only happen in a classroom and being exposed to many ideas, various teachers, etc.

Granted some high school dropouts go on to get a good education and can succeed in life - but it is a much harder road.

Why would Levi had had to quit in March? The baby wasn't due till the end of the year? And since they are not going to marry till June next year - he could have finished school and then gotten married and then gotten a job. If the entire world already knew Bristol was pregnant, why did she have to leave school? - there are many pregnant teens that attend high school these days - my husband has had a few in his classes over the years.

Anonymous said...

Those photos of the children signing photos which were posted by Patrick are shocking and Sarah Palin and Todd Palin should be ashamed of themselves for allowing them to do so.

I sincerely believe that SP and TP should have sat those children down and explained to them that mommy was involved in a political campaign but that this fact did not make them any different from any other child in the world. She has spoiled them, probably for life now, with her thrusting of them into the limelight in such a "glaring" way. Signing autographs!

For God's sake Sarah do not come crying to us about your families privacy and how horrible the people are who criticise your children (I am referring to the Canadian interview here)! You put them out there yourself and it is you and your husband who are responsible for allowing them to get so involved in your political ambitions. Nobody else!

I wonder what Craig has to say about this?

Anonymous said...

Vanishing Points in Gusty photo:

The Vanisher says, "[T]here are two different vanishing points, one on the left of Palin (blue lines) and one on the right (red lines). This is NOT normal. There should only be a single vanishing point for all those lines, assuming the carpet pattern is continuous behind Palin."

Does anyone know anyone in Juneau who could go to the Statehouse, find the location of this photo, and see if there is a carpet seam that explains the two vanishing points?

A carpet seam where the pattern is matched to the naked eye but is actually off by a little is the only way I have thought of for the carpet lines to produce the two vanishing points -- other than an altered composite picture! -B.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for all the comments and observations about the Necklace/Gusty photo!

I urge everyone here who believes that FactCheck should re-examine the Gusty picture that they should email Factcheck with the evidence found in Audrey's blog.The more people who do so, the more Factcheck will take this issue seriously.

Additionally, if you feel that you have anything further to add from your own observations please do so. Thank you all again.


Vinnie said...


Thank you for all that you do. This is very important. Please ignore those that tell you otherwise. Keep it up!!

I think people are trying to find too much in the photos. The area between Andreas legs is very dark and we wouldn't expect the carpet markings to be there anyway. (They line up directly behind each of her legs.)

I don't think the trajectory of the lines is at issue either. Camera lenses can distort things. Besides, if there was any fudging of the photo it probably wouldn't be with the floor in the background.

I'll acknowledge that the photo looks like Sarah was just plopped into it. But, even a PhotoShop expert can't say clearly that it was edited. While we can speculate all night, I think further analysis of the photo won't yield much.

What I think is odd is that the cameraman is placed so as to interview one person. He'd need to back up quite a bit to interview two people. Also, Sarah is too far away for a standard 1-1 interview. Watch any newscast tonight and see how far away the two people are. Then again, one could say that this was a staged shot done before they did the actual interview.

Let's stick to what we know. This photo was posted on the Internet by someone who has refused to identify themselves. (Or have we figured out who Amigo 1 is?) The photo is of reduced quality and we can't get the original picture. The timestamp has been deliberately reset. Gusty isn't saying who took the picture. No one is providing any precise information about when the shot was taken. Enough reason to call into doubt its veracity.

Also, I believe the second photo is legit. It's simply an attempt to say "See, I really do know the governor". I just don't see that value in creating a fake here.


Thanks to everyone for posting on this site. Spread the word. More and more people are starting to listen to this blog. If we keep it up, our questions will be impossible to ignore.

Anonymous said...

Yawning....can't you think of something more interesting to write about. Certainly, someone as powerful as Sarah Palin has some dirt far more interesting than this to report.

Anonymous said...

I am still wondering if Bristol's labor was induced by prior agreement on April 17/18. I don't want this part of a post by Patrick yesterday to be forgotten:

We are always talking about the "wild ride". I think that in doing so, we have fallen into one of SP´s traps (and we can catch her "red handed" at the same time).

There was a report whose exact wording was repeated on several websites. In this report you can find the following remark:

"After the baby was born, Palin told her staff members that her experiences from four previous pregnancies made her comfortable with the signs of active labor. She felt that neither she nor her baby were in any danger, and so she flew home as scheduled."


For example here:

There is no reason to believe that this report is wrong. A report saying that SP actually CHANGED her flights on the way back from Texas to Alaska is nowhere to be found.

Mary G. said...

I cannot resist another photoshop comment! Almost everyone has contributed significant info about these pictures, and noticed many anomalies.
I thought the carpet was a red herring (esp. the black-rectangular outline on the lower right--could it be a cord?). But something seemed off. Such a pattern in a carpet should be easy for someone to manipulate (those diagonal lines receding in space are like a text-book example of perspective, which can have more than one vanishing point). But after wearing myself out taking "virtual" tours of that building, I realized that where Palin is positioned is where 2 hallways meet at right angles to each other. From some views, like overhead, it might appear as a herringbone pattern where one set of motifs meets another. But this dodgy angle makes it hard to tell, other than a slightly off-kilter look. So either the pic was manipulated and the person discarded the "meeting" of the 2 patterns, or at this angle they seem lined up.
A last observation--her left leg REALLY looks too short. I think this may be where the "dropping" in of her image was least successful (plus that she seems too small in relation to Gusty).
So==sjk, I think you noticed that foot! Weird! Mary g.

KaJo said...

RE: Patrick's overlaid pictures of The Three Amigos (comment 10:09 AM)...

In your layering, Patrick, Bill McAllister's entire head and all his features are HUGE compared to either of the other 2. Would it be a more accurate rendition if you moved them all closer together but maintained the same "layering" that we see in the photo? I.e., Dan C. in the back, then SP, then Bill McA?

I've uploaded a compressed grouping as described, and it looks in more proportion -- ALTHOUGH it's true Sarah Palin still looks like a hobbit --

About her footwear: In Photo#1, she appears to be wearing 1-1/2" to 2" low heels, which presumably would put her at around 5'8" or so if we presume The First Dude is 6' (and I'm assuming she hasn't grown since her beauty queen days, I'd think she'd have to be at least 5'6 for pageantry).

In this 2007 picture SP and McAllister are seemingly equidistant from the camera --

I layered her and Bill McAllister (who was interviewing one of the ex-govs I took out of the picture) closer together for height comparison

she appears to be ~3+ inches shorter than McAllister, and his head vs. hers seems to be more in proportion.

In Photo#2, however, she's about 3 inches shorter than THAT! Surely, accounting for stilettos in the 2007 picture and low heels in Photo#2, she should be taller than she's pictured in Photo#2...


To wayofpeace (3:58 PM), you said, "the focal point of the camera is just about at the same height as the 2 women's eyes, placing it closer to the bottom than the top."

I'm sorry, but I have proof that the focal point is a bit higher than the 2 women's eyes... :)

Take a look at this photo I uploaded --

I drew some green lines in on Vanisher's "vanishing point" picture. Look at the angle of the line at the bottom of the pictures on the wall (ignore the plaque to the left of the door), then look at the line above the pictures. Since the lower one diverges at a greater angle than the top one, that would indicate that the camera lens is higher than the center of the pictures; I place the lens height just over the top of Gusty's head.

Because the camera lens is level high on the background door, and a wide-angle effect was probably in use when the picture was taken, it seems logical that the top of the door is "wider" than the bottom. It's just wide-angle lens effect, I'm sure.

(but that doesn't change some of the other findings the expert and a lot of us have noticed about Photo#1)

Anonymous said...

hi audrey, thanks for all your efforts and persistence. just a thought: your blog would be easier to navigate and a lot more useful to readers if you put permalinks on all your posts and if you labeled all your posts. it's really easy to do this on blogger. i'm sure someone can walk you through it person or we can talk you through it can even go back and label posts that you already wrote.

Anonymous said...

This notion, if it is true, of People paying Bristol $300,000 for photos of her baby makes me sick. Talk about glamorizing irresponsible behavior.

Here's my suggestion to People. Don't stop at Bristol. Why not do a feature on the Unwed Teenage Mothers of America - one from each state - Bristol can, of course, be Miss Alaska.

Fly them all to Wasilla for a photoshoot. Do a Q & A with each (sort of like they interview the Playboy bunnies) and ask (1) Did your parents ever teach you about birth control?; (2) why did you decide to have unprotected sex?; (3) were any drugs or alcohol involved?; and (4) how do you plan to support your child?

However, only Bristol should get the $300,000, not any of the other girls. Gotta teach them that you only get rich out of unwed teenage motherhood if your mama is a defeated VP candidate.

This People spread would be about as classy as the one the magazine is allegedly planning with Bristol.

Oh yeah, why not have all the girls and their babies prayed over by Reverend Muthee while they are up in Wasilla, so they can all be protected from witchcraft. And include the good Reverend in the photo spread, please.

Anonymous said...

Re the door differences:

On the Gusty photo, I copied just SP, the carpet dots, and the SP vanishing point off Patrick's "Two vanishing points" photo. Then I made this patch 50% transparent (so I could see both patch and orig because I was going to move the patch around), and I isolated the patch from the main whole photo and rotated the patch and slid it down, so the two vanishing points matched.

Just because I have zero aptitude for "spatial relationship," I was surprised to see that in that positioning, SP is shot from above, as if someone took the photo by holding the camera high up, like someone suggested earlier. And she is slightly tilted forward due to the angle. Well, even allowing for a little error in the exact location of the vanishing points, this seemed interesting to me -- and of course fits with the obvious reality that when a pro inserts a pasted-in person, s/he'd have to adjust for the slightly different camera angle of each original shot. (Not something I ever do for pasting in people in my home photos.)

So could the door difference be due to fixing up SP's camera angle (upon pasting her in here, and thus creating two vanishing points for the carpet dots) but neglecting to fix the doors, the background? I'm at a loss here -- the aforementioned spatial-stuff deficit.

Pls look too in the Gusty photo at the left of the hem of SP's jacket: the logo/printing on the end of that box. Even without enlarging it, you can see that the green zig-zag is different intensities of color. (Or it could be the middle "w" part of the zig-zag is darker on purpose on the box logo).

When you enlarge that green zig-zag, it looks like multiple patches. The oval green line surrounding the zig-zag logo is broken too. In an enlargement, you can see a discontinuity in the dark of the flap of the box just above all that, too. No special tools needed to see all that -- just drag/copy the official photo to your desktop, open as a jpg, and zoom it up. I just see the ghosts of a lot of patches there. (As I do in SP's hair in this photo -- patches that have been fuzzed out from being done several generations of copying and up/downsizing ago).

Plus, as someone mentioned earlier, isn't this night the wrong night for trash to be out in the hall? I.e., the pick-up would have happened earlier?

Not sure how to connect the dots here.

--Amy the first

Littl' me said...

The Vanisher, January 2, 2009 1:23 PM :
That's EXACTLY what I meant when I said something earlier with the lines next to SP being slightly off! Thank you for making it clearly visible!

Kat said...

Speaking of photographs, I've been looking at a few baby pics...

To my eye, the "Amber and Levi" baby (boy or girl) does not look like any of the photos of Trig. Different nose, etc. The more interesting question is how the documented photos of Trig compare to each other. As noted by The Zoo, official photos show a remarkably chubby-cheeked, premature Trig, supposedly taken in the hospital:
Now, compare this to the birth announcement photo in an announcement one can't imagine was faked:
Or maybe I missed something, and this has already been discussed(?) To my eye, at least, it's the same baby in the two photos, but clearly not the same baby at the same age.

Windy City Woman said...

Friends of mine in New York state adopted a baby at birth 3 years ago. It took about 90 days to become official. I'm not sure how long it took to get the birth certificate, though.

Oh, so there is a waiting list to get into Levi's apprentice program? Gee, I wonder how he got to the front of the line. Is there an affirmative action program for the offspring of drug dealers?

Sarah thinks the Iraq war is a mission from God? Let's see if she feels the same way if her son comes home in a box, or with missing limbs or brain damage. I think she is confusing God with Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. Of course she would see it as a mission from God...Iraq war = higher gas prices = larger Alaska Permanent Fund payments = increased popularity for her. When people in Chicago were paying $4.69 a gallon for gas a few months ago, I don't think anyone here saw the war as a mission from God.

Why does Chuck Heath get to announce the births? So if the stores turn out to be incorrect, Sarah can say it was a mix-up in communication, rather than a lie.

Hawaii officials have stated that Obama's birth certificate is authentic.

I realize that nothing above relates to our task at hand, but I couldn't resist responding.

Someone asked why we care about Tripp's birth date. This is so we can determine whether or not it is possible for Bristol to be Trig's birth mom.

With all the bloggers discussing the carpet in the statehouse, how weird would it be if they recarpeted NEXT WEEK?

Anonymous said...

Frustrated by the difficulty of analyzing Photo 1 on my computer (due to a small monitor), I decided to try to find the vanishing point the old fashioned way: I printed Photo 1 and drew some lines connecting the white carpet dots. I used the left side of the dots as a reference, and, alas, all the lines converged on a single vanishing point, which is pretty close to the top of Gusty's head, right where she parts her hair.

Hopefully the other avenues of anomaly-hunting will turn out to be more useful.

teal said...

SPQuote of the day:
"I don't want our children growing up thinking they should get special treatment or be pampered just because their mother is governor. Because when this ends, they still have to face the real world."

I found this quote from 2007 @

What a joke...she’s the 1st one to give them special treatment!

I bet SP hired her own Photoshop Expert to put these picture
‘perfect’ images together. What she didn’t count on was Audrey & company to ‘keep’ questioning those pretty images.

I’m sticking with my theory, one pose – many angles – these were placed into these compositions called “what we now see.”

Everyone in ‘The 3 Amigos’ picture seem to have different stances – not at all like they were standing next to one another. Gray Suit guy - his hair on the left side is so sharp - while the right side of his hair is all fuzzy...someone edited in too much or took off too much. What’s up with the tie?
SP has hair added at the top & her right shoulder too...And maybe I’m off, but is it possible for one lens of SP glasses to reflect what’s in front of her and not the other? SP seems to be looking a bit upward [her focus].
The Camel Colored suit, look just behind the top of his right shoulder there is an area that is not part of the suit...he seem to be leaning forward? C R A Z Y

Ladies & gentlemen, the phat lady has been called to the world stage, [this blog]. She has started clearing her throat [discoveries shared on this blog]. Soon we’re going to have a full-blown Opera! And yes, the [coming] finale will be beautiful, yet tragic - showcasing the liar and her lies as defeated by truth...

Anonymous said...

Say, has anyone looked at the differences between the flickr photo #1 and the same photo sent by Gusty to

Superficially, they look identical, but at a binary level they're not: the flickr photo is 1024x768 resolution and the factcheck photo is 1000x750.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the boxes in the hallway, Wesley Loy said in a April 14 article that many people went home as soon as the session ended that afternoon and there were a lot of boxes packed up in the hallways.

Diana said...

I have finally got around to updating the photo albums so they all show in sequence by date. I found several more photos of Trig when he is supposedly a newborn. I have added around 60 more photos. I think it is really worth comparing the size of not only Trig but Sarah ever changing belly size.

I for one intend to be diligent until we get the answers to our questions. There are so many!

Is their ANYONE on this site that lives in Wasilla, Palmer, Juneau or Anchorage??? Please sign in Anon...and let us know that we have someone who has had some first hand knowledge of this Blessed Event and or past connection to Bristol and or Sarah. Tell no one in your community interested?

Anonymous said...

Honestly I believe Preznit, skj from the belly of the plane, Vanisher, wayofpeace, B, Patrick, and the others who are providing such detailed analysis of the Gusty pic have found a true discrepancy and one that should be pursued. While there can be multiple vanishing points (defined as infinite points along a line) in a photograph, there can only be ONE horizon line in an image taken by a single camera. The lines drawn by The Vanisher on the Gusty pic end in two vanishing points on TWO different levels, one pinpointed on Gusty's nose and the other above and to the right of Gusty's head, meaning these points occur on TWO different horizon lines. This is impossible if taken from a single camera's point of view and would only be possible if images in the photo are composited from two photographs.

The horizon line is the line which is at the same level where the lens of the camera is pointing (the "eye level" of a single camera, so to speak), and presuming the camera is held parallel to the ground, the horizon line will be parallel to the top and bottom borders of the photograph (hence the term "horizontal"). The horizon line for SP's image is higher than the horizon line for Gusty's, indicating the images of the two women were snapped from slightly different angles and somehow composited together.

Great detective work, everyone! It's really impressive how you worked together to figure out there are questionable discrepancies in the Gusty photo.


regina said...

Unexpected births can happen anywhere!

Anita said...

Oh, and Patrick, I think the difference in the 2 star necklaces is that the 'real' one has a black center and the one in the 3Amigo's photo looks to be plain gold, although the same basic size/shape.

Anonymous said...

KaJo's remark on SP's height-

SP is nowhere near 5'8 or even 5'6. She's a teeny, teeny woman.Even next to John McCain (who I believe is 5'7) in extremely high heels, her eyes only come to his chin.(pics on mccain blogette, there is a pic of them together waiting to be announced, then a good shot of her shoes later on stage)
Her hairstylist in Alaska said the reason for the tall updo she wore was to try to make her look taller.

I don't see a problem with the kids signing autographs, i'm sure they were tickled and the crowd looks thrilled.A once in a lifetime chance, nothing wrong with it.No evilness there, and it surely doesnt give people the right to think they are fair game because they are allowed to do it.SP said many times what an amazing experience it was for the kids and how much the kids learned.Cute little precocious Piper had a blast, you could see it on her face on stage a lot.

Anonymous said...

Vinnie said, "I don't think the trajectory of the lines is at issue either. Camera lenses can distort things."

KaJo said, "Because the camera lens is level high on the background door, and a wide-angle effect was probably in use when the picture was taken, it seems logical that the top of the door is "wider" than the bottom. It's just wide-angle lens effect, I'm sure."

Anyone else have an opinion on camera lenses' distortions? -B.

Anonymous said...

Amy the first, did you see this comment discussing the box markings, as you are?
teal said...THE BOXES: they give the impression of being upside down. Lettering on the box = AA, not zigzags. Parts have been altered or behind SP jacket.
January 2, 2009 11:13 PM

wayofpeace said...

good catch, KaJo. i based my estimation just by observation but obviously was off.

great analysis, amy the first!

VR, too-true: there CANNOT be 2 horizon lines.

PICTURE 1 is a mess, the garbage is piling up.

it's ironic that the image released to make the case of her pregnancy will be the one that exposes the hoax.

oh, KARMA! she who never sleeps!

wayofpeace said...

just read this, very appropos:

You can’t see
what you are never told to look for.

Anonymous said...

Well, the vanishing lines analysis is pretty interesting. I tried it by printing out a copy and drawing lines, which I think is more accurate than using the computer-generated lines, which are never perfectly straight if on a diagonal (right?). I found that there is not a single point or two points, but an area of convergence above and to the right of Gusty's head, extending up toward the inner corner of the photo frame. The convergence is never as defined (one point, two points) as in the versions posted on-line, and never reaches as low as Gusty's head nor face. I think there is some subjectivity in where the lines are drawn, and also the nature of the carpet itself may account for the lack of an exact, precise convergence -- carpets are fabric and have somewhat imprecise patterns; there is some waviness visible in the pattern; and some shifting of the pattern is visible near the wall (probably due to the way it was installed). This makes it hard to draw a firm conclusion that this proves the photo was altered; but I don't discount it fully, as it is yet another interesting oddity in these photos.

On another note, though, I realized that the vanishing points analysis could show us the elevation of the camera lens, which is an indicator of the height of the photographer. If you draw vanishing point lines using the photo and woodwork on the left side of the picture, and then draw an exactly horizontal line through their intersection, you'll see that the camera lens was at an elevation between Sarah's hairline and the top of her head. There is a slightly downward tilt to the camera to be accounted for; thus the lens was at approximately the top of her head. You can then compare this to the 3Amigos photo. The same height falls just below McAllister's eye level but at Carpenter's mouth level. Allowing for an eyepiece a little above the lens, the Gusty photo could have been taken by someone McAllister's height (without bending down), but if Carpenter took it, he had to bend/adjust his body to lower his eye. (Of course, I know there are questions being raised about whether this photo was tampered with and whether the relative heights are accurate.)

Also, the paper print of the photo makes the focus easier to evaluate. The cameraman is definitely much sharper than Gusty or Palin; but Palin is definitely the blurriest, which does not seem to obey the laws of physics. (I'd wager it's not the only law broken in this caper!) While again it's not proof, the poor quality of the photo with something as basic as focus would seem to suggest that a professional cameraman was not the photographer.

Sorry I cannot scan and post my print with lines drawn on it...

Now I have to stop looking at these photos and get back to other things!!!


sjk from the belly of the plane said...

Pic 2. tan suit dude. small white area on his right neck. looks to be the white area behind him but up close it is in FRONT of him. check it out. the pixels around his entire body all have the same jaggies, but not that area. It actually cuts into his face!

KaJo said...

Re-visiting the compressed-grouping adjustment I made to Photo#2 of the Three Amigos --

This morning I then took the Sarah-Palin component of that picture and re-sized it to compare exactly in proportion to the Sarah-Palin component of the interview picture from 2007 -- which shows SP and Bill McA standing face-to-face
(note the top of her head is nearly level with his hairline in that picture -- )

The result:

Sarah Palin is now about 120% larger than in the peculiar "original" Three Amigos Photo#2, and I'd say she's more accurately in proportion to Bill McA. (I didn't include Dan C. in the picture because I don't have another picture of the two of them together to compare).

She's no longer a hobbit.

Whoever originally composited Photo#2 and uploaded it to that erik99599 Flickr page didn't take into consideration proportions of facial features when they pasted Photo#2 together.

Kay said...

I’m staying strong with my conspiracy theory of Trig’s birthparents are Track Palin & Sherry Johnston…! Also my little countdown to Jan. 6th and the first court date of Sherry Johnston is…3 days to go! Hopefully Ms. Johnston won't get the same judge that Track got on that vandalism charge in 2005! Stay tuned!

Half Sigma said...

I've looked really carefully at photo #1, and I just don't see any evidence of it being a composite photo.

Palin is blurrier because the camera focused on the camera man.

Most compelling, there is very subtle chromatic aberration along the side of the door that's also present where the black of Palin's clothes border with the wall.

Furthermore, there is a wisp of Sarah's hair tha'ts transparent (the opposite of what the unnamed "expert" said).

If this is a fake photo, the person who faked it is a brilliantly talented photoshop expert. It's hard to believe that a conspiracy would include four members of the press plus a photoshop expert.

Maybe she was just wearing a better quality fake belly on April 13th.

wayofpeace said...


Media expert Michael Levine told CBS that [SP's calls to PM] were "in some ways, demeaning of the position she has. It's so clearly an effort to go on offense against a bad situation."

Anonymous said...

I'm not sold on the composite idea for 3 Amigos. Sarah Palin is short -- see her next to John McCain (who is 5'7" according to many reports):

She is wearing high heels, but is still a couple of inches shorter than McCain -- making her no more than 5'2" or 5'3".

Probably there is a way to test this theory and the challenges re photo 1, by finding photos of Gusty and seeing how tall she is. Not sure it's a great use of time, though; but feel free to disagree!

Anonymous said...

Whatever happened to the paparazzi? If this were Britney or Lindsey instead of Bristol, wouldn't they stake out her doorway hoping to get another tabloid picture, which ought to be worth alot of money, scooping People's $300,000 exclusive. How come a reporter, snoop, anyone hasn't done what other reporters, snoops do, namely go through the Palin garbage to collect some DNA samples. No one is even trying!Remember Sarah drinking coffee from a paper cup during the turkey pardoning? There have to be more paper cups and Diet Doctor Peppers around.

Anonymous said...

That's how they deal with government official's baby birth announcements in France

gpbag said...

Re Kat's comment "official photos show a remarkably chubby-cheeked, premature Trig, supposedly taken in the hospital". This has also been noted by others as possible evidence that Trig is older than he is reported to be.
The birth process often causes facial swelling puffy eyes etc as those of you who have children may recall. So this most likely accounts for the differences in appearance of Trig compared to later photos.

Anonymous said...

I've no opinion on the photo authenticity (too technically complex for me), though I DO agree they look odd.

I do have a comment on Palin's gaze in the 3 amigos photo. She definitely appears to be focused slightly upward, however I remembered something from seeing footage of her early sports broadcasting stint. It seemed she had one eye that was a I believe it was her right eye (on our left view) and it seemed to slightly wander or wasn't always in sync with the other. In this current photo it kind of looks like one eye (the same one, to the left) is looking up slightly more than the other.

Just puttin' it out there. That possibly could account for her unfocused look in 3 amigos. Or not.

Anonymous said...

Diana 11:11

Here is another picture to add to your collection. Sarah is with teens asking about "thinking green" on 3/19/2008. You cannot see her belly.

The picture is small, but it looks like it was taken in the Gov's office.

Southeast teens thank Palin for 'thinking green' - March 19, 2008

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Diana for the nice photo collection. You have some I haven't seen before. While quickly looking through, I noticed that a photo dated 9/14/07 looks like it was taken in the governor's mansion(?); and in it Bristol is wearing the same dress that she has on in the family portrait, in which she may or may not have a little baby bump. (Sarah has a red jacket, though.)

In the family portrait, the facts that we can ascertain are that 1) they are in Juneau and 2) Track is with them, which means it was before he went to boot camp (otherwise I think his head would probably be shaved). My hunch is that this was taken right before he left for the army -- which was 9/11/07? Just trying to nail something down that's been elusive.

Is there any way to firmly date any of the other photos and get other data? Like the EXIF data from Photo 1 & 2? If so, it would be good to apply that technique to these photos. I don't know how to do it, or I would try. I would start with the baby shower pictures, where Trig really looks like a newborn, IMO. This would help resolve a very important point -- when Trig was actually born.

Anonymous said...

Thought this head line on yahoo was ineresting. Is someone trying to say something subliminally?

Week of babies and lies
Sarah Palin talks about her daughter's baby, and a hoax that fooled Oprah Winfrey falls apart. » What else?

*Palin: Bristol and Levi not dropouts
*How amazing story fooled so many

mc said...

Re: the hobbit pictures. I think this is a false lead. Sarah is a small woman, with a small head--one of the reasons she wears that hair. (I'm also a small woman with a small head; line me up with those guys and I'd look like a hobbit.)

As for her press snarky leaning forward, he seems to do that; just look at the earlier photo taken of him in profile with Sarah. It's a bad posture habit. The guy needs to do yoga.

But on photo number one: Can't one get that kind of distortion (short and fat) from simply resizing a photo to fit a space? I've accidently done it with my own photos. Any of you photoshop pros tried cutting Sarah out, stretching her out taller and thinner again, and then putting her back in the photo? It might be interesting to see the effect.

Anonymous said...

anon 8:43

Presented a pic of a preggo French offical. If you look at the belly you see the belly button. I have never been preggo, but every preggo I have seen their belly buttons stick out.

In the pregg belly of Gov Sarah Palin there is "NO BELLY BUTTON"!

Tina in CA said...

So much is made of Trig not looking like a newborn in photos with his grandparents, the Heath's, shortly after his birth. I believe the angle of the camera and the way he's been swaddled (as well as birth facial swelling as mentioned by gpbag) makes him appear chubbier in that photo than he really was.

He looks like a regular size newborn in the photos of his baby shower. Those photos also look similar to the photos on Mercede's MySpace.

LisanTX said...

Here is the headline on Yahoo today:

Week of babies and lies

Sarah Palin talks about her daughter's baby, and a hoax that fooled Oprah Winfrey falls apart. » What else?

Palin: Bristol and Levi not dropouts How amazing story fooled so many

(Without the pictures and boldface print in color, the headline loses its impact.)

For an instant I thought the story was broken open, but Yahoo had put two stories together to form this interesting headline. I don't think it was just a coincidence. I think it was a message--someone at Yahoo has a sense of humor and is just waiting for the meconium to hit the fan!

Did anyone else see this?


Emma said...

gpbag at 9:02 says "The birth process often causes facial swelling puffy eyes etc as those of you who have children may recall. So this most likely accounts for the differences in appearance of Trig compared to later photos." That can be true, but it is not true that a baby's head (not just cheeks) gets significantly smaller a few weeks after birth.

I posted a few topics back that what I see is a larger head and body length in comparison to the adult holding him in the pic w/Grandma Health in the hospital (supposedly taken 4/18 or 4/19) than in the pics w/SP and Todd (he's wearing a salmon colored short-sleeve shirt w/black vest; supposedly on 4/23), the pics w/Mercedes and the pics at the baby shower. If you compare the ratio of head to adult hand, it appears that Trig's head is significantly smaller in the Mercedes, baby shower and even 4/23 pics than the hospital pic. If you compare the length of his body to the adult arm, looking at placement of his head, feet (extended or not), etc, he appears much bigger in Grandma Heath pics.

Another thing I noted today. Look at the size of his hand grasping SP's finger in the 4/23 (Todd and salmon-colored shirt) pic vs the 5/5 baby shower pic. The amount of SP's finger he is covering with his grasp is less in the 5/5 pic than the 4/23 pic.

Btw, my word verification "word" is "listen". Hmmm ... :-)

Kay said...

I bet there are National Enquirer reporters “camped out” at the courthouse awaiting Sherry Johnston’s arrival on January 6th…I’m sure at least one paparazzi is waiting! I’m pretty sure they have other pictures to add to their story…can’t wait to see it all unfold!

KaJo said...

To Anon @ 5:25 AM and 8:34 (are you the same person?):

OK, I'll concede that Sarah Palin never will be 5'8" even if she's wearing 4" fm pumps.... :)

I think you're right, Sarah Palin might be 5'3" her stocking feet. So far, I don't think we've seen her unshod, though.

I've read several sources that say John McCain wears 2" shoe lifts to make himself appear taller. It certainly looks like he is, in this RNC introduction picture -- -- which I also found on

Palin is probably 5'3" with 3-1/2" added in those famous red pumps, and McCain is probably 5'6" with 2" shoe lifts.

There's a picture of Sarah Palin in fatigues at Ft. Wainright; she's maybe 2" shorter than the soldier next to her, and clearly 6" shorter than the one who's talking to her.

I found another picture of Palin in Carhharts dungarees, boots, and a white shirt posing with her "gas line team" after the AGIA bill signing. She's nearly as tall as the bald guy next to her, and fractionally taller than the women standing slightly behind her in the front row. Unless they're all shrimps, she's gotta be 5'5" to 5'6" in that pic also)

Now, how tall are Bill McAllister and Dan Carpenter?

To Anon @ 9:05 AM

I think you're right about the "off" eye -- it's called strabismus, and supposedly that's why she wears glasses (has she never undergone vision therapy?).

It looks to me like she had an attack of that wandering eye (another name for strabismus) when Photo#2 was taken, and someone corrected it with the cloning method, rather clumsily. Thus, an odd appearance to her left eye, albeit now "in line" with the right eye...

Anonymous said...

Something to think about.

There is always a season and time for everything to happen. The laws of nature are ALWAYS working. For every cause there is a effect.

I am positive that people are watching Sarah and her family under microscope. But they are not going to waste their amo until the absolute right time.

Just like I said in the election Allow the enemy to destroy themselves and you don't have to use much effort to finish it off. People that are not mindfull are caught in a web. You cannot escape the web without the effects of what you created.

palin pregnancy truth said...

As for the vanishing points, is it possible that part of the carpet appears to be elevated? It looks like there is some rectangular thing beneath the carpet (perhaps holding electrical wiring). I think this would effect the vanishing point.

Just want to get the truth.

palin pregnancy truth said...

I think we need to focus on the facts when we contact

1) Gusty claims to be the only one with the photo? Why? She obviously did not take the picture. Was it taken with her camera?

2) We can not find it on the web ANYWHERE before being uploaded to a flickr account AFTER the rumors where going viral on the internet. It was uploaded to a flickr account which currently only has two pictures. Who joins flickr to post only 2 very specific pictures unless they have an agenda?

3) The picture was uploaded to a higher resolution and then REUPLOADED to a lower resolution. Why would you do this if it was a real picture and you wanted to dispel the rumors? It makes it appear as if you have something to hide.

4) Our requests for video footage from that day, which should corroborate the authenticity of Sarah Palin's appearance in the pictures have been ignored by Gusty's station, Sarah Palin's previous employer.

Anonymous said...

That Yahoo Headline which references Palin (& Oprah) is amazing ("Week of Babies and Lies"). Yes, somewhere, an editor is giving a subliminal signal...Message Received!

Anonymous said...

Regarding photo #2 with all three (and I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet or not), the tall guy is standing with his hands in his pockets, too casual or too comfortable next to a pregnant woman that is not his wife or girlfriend. Professionally ackward even though there are three people standing in a narrow hallway.

DeKay said...

One related story which does not seem to have anyone's attention is the delayed trial of David Kernell, the accused hacker into Palin's yahoo account.,2817,2334761,00.asp
It is my contention that the hack was a staged event to get sympathy for Palin and to keep investigators away from her emails. First clue? Nothing damaging on the stuff supposedly posted by David Kernell. Second, the flimsiest of connections started an internet firestorm which had this boy strung up within one day.
Palin's handlers are the same ones who did the bogus hack. The trial is delayed until May 2009, due to the detail required for forensic analysis?!?
Read: The trail is delayed until no one will care at all about Kernell's innocence or guilt.

One good source, if you are good at reading between the lines:

KaJo said...

Maybe now is a good time to ask:

How many of us here (who are willing to ID themselves and not post anonymously) have actually SEEN Sarah Palin, somewhat close up and "in the flesh"?

It'd be nice to know if someone can verify whether or not she DOES have a small head and a small face as mc (@ 10:19 AM) contends.

....because the pictures of McAllister that I've seen indicate that he's not a large-boned man, and his face should not be so much larger than Palin's in that Photo#2.

(I'm a small woman, too, under 5', but I wear a "large" woman's hat size)


Just like my wish and hope that someone here lives in Juneau or commutes there regularly, and can go visit the Capitol building, and that 2nd floor hallway, take pictures...


P.S. To reiterate, and to allay any confusion, I did NOT stretch the pictures I re-configured, or try to make the subjects thinner. I only changed their size proportionately.

RW said...

Im putting this here because its the latest thread.

Let's take a look at the cameraman in #1.
Its easy to ignore him as he is closer to the front.
If you look at the one leg of the light stand there is a light source reflection which wouldnt be from the standing lights which are sppdly pointed out and towards the women figures.
Is that lamp stand leg with the reflection on it lit from the light source coming from whatever was sppdly taking the still shot?
...if so why isnt the camera guys
shirt back more lit from the direction of the still shooter?
Are there indoor cameras that dont use flashes?

Does anyone venture a guess as to why that one lamp stand leg has light reflection on it?

He has major light reflections from the overheads on the front of his left sleeve and the shoulder which is much brighter than any light thrown on the women or any light that would normally create shadow behind the base of SPs feet.

With a light source near directly beside camera guy and the camera case showing direct light on only the left edge why doesnt the shadow from the camera case fall further down his back on the right side? it because there is more light source behind him to the left where the still shot sppdly emanates from??

If so why does his shirt carry so many shadows?

The shadows and light on camera guy never looked appropriate imo.

If the light is only from overhead its a bright light which barely affects the women.

You can see the cowl on the wall where the standing lamp light casts its range and creates shadow below the stand and then halfway thru the doorway....So then what is the shadow that appears between the frames directly over Gutsy's left my right shoulder?
There would be some frame shadow from light source but why would there be that entire grey shadow darkness between one pic frame and leading to the other frame...How does that happen?...that greyness is very horizontal, not angled or diagonal as it would be with light above it.
The frame by camera guy shows a diagonal light line/shadow dropping downwards, why would the next frame by Gutsy show a horizontal and apparent convex bulge going upward?

And why would the third frame behind Gutsy only show a corner shadow at the bottom left edge...Why wouldnt that one corner of that frame bleed a shadow more towards the doorjamb...why does that shadow abruptly stop?

On top of that the left wall and the camera guy are out of proportion by comparison to the woman figures.
Ive had problems with that left wall all along.
That left wall frame is well out of proportion to the other frames.

Im thinking the entire photo is put together.
I think its a hodge-podge of composites...

Anonymous said...

mc, I'm with you on this:

"But on photo number one: Can't one get that kind of distortion (short and fat) from simply resizing a photo to fit a space? I've accidently done it with my own photos. Any of you photoshop pros tried cutting Sarah out, stretching her out taller and thinner again, and then putting her back in the photo? It might be interesting to see the effect."

I find it interesting that at least two people recall seeing the same Gusty photo but with Sarah looking less pregnant. One even remembers a demo, perhaps linked to Daily Kos in September, that showed how the belly could have been expanded. Anyone else see it?

It's possible that Sarah was removed, as you suggest, and squashed to have a bigger baby belly, and then put back in. If this is fairly easy Photoshopping, then an amateur could have done it him/herself. The squashing screwed up the necklace and rather than trying to fix it the Photoshopper just deleted it.

1. There's evidence of alteration found by the pixel expert. Then we've found macro-level issues, if not inconsistencies, as well. I believe the photo was altered.

2. But even if the Gusty photo was taken April 13 and has never been altered, all it would prove is that Palin looked pregnant then, not that she actually was pregnant. That's all Gusty could know as well. (So much for Factcheck!)

3. Interesting, as at least Patrick has pointed out, that Palin's people use the photo to show she looked pregnant but Palin tells the media that she "never looked pregnant." Is she saying the photo was altered, or just lying her way out of a reckless airplane trip?

4. If Palin planned all along to return from Dallas on 4/17, and her daughter planned all along to be induced on that night, then around the first of April (Elan Frank video) whe would have really started padding up to look ready to have a baby mid-month. It would be important to have a later due date and claim Trig was born early so that no "baby watch" was on among her staff or the press; thus she needed to look 7.5-8 mos. along. It would also be important to meet at the hospital in the dark of night when no one was watching and many thought she was still in Dallas. Maybe the fluid and contractions stories were just to explain why labor was induced for a baby was still a month off.

5. As to the medical statement, if some other medical person wsa willing to write Bristol's delivery story (pre-term, induced) on Sarah's record, then all CBJ had to do was report on what Sarah's medical records showed.

Sorry, MC, but I haven't tried to Photoshop or morph anything before, so I am not the one to try stretching Sarah as you suggest.

Yes, there's little incentive among Sarah's enemies to do a gotcha (you betcha) on her right now, since she self-destructs so well. But the story lives here among those who just want the Truth, whatever the Consequences.-B

Mary G. said...

looking back, Palin and Gusty have different left legs. Like they have been transposed.
someone was playing paper dolls with these figures.
mary g.

ocean said...

Apprenticeship raises questions about Palin

Anchorage Daily News Opinion

Now it appears the governor may have found a new way to skirt the rules. How is it possible that the governor's soon-to-be son-in-law, Levi Johnston, is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 386   Newer› Newest»