Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Once and For All...

I hope I can more or less accurately date this photo:

This has been one of the most enduring images of this entire debate. It appeared in the very first Daily Kos posting on the controversy, on August 30th, 2008. The fact that so much stock was put into this picture and Bristol's "baby bump" was very unfortunate. When the dating of the photo was challenged - successfully - mainstream media en masse backed off from the story, leaving, in my opinion, many extremely valid questions about Sarah Palin's spring 2008 pregnancy unanswered and ignored.

Just recently, including in comments here on this blog and in other places, the debate about this photo has rekindled. AGAIN. A common tactic has been to compare the photo to photos absolutely known to be taken at Sarah Palin's inauguration on January 19, 2007. Many people have stated categorically that the children - Piper in particular - look younger there, than in the "mystery" photo. And since the photo in question is obviously taken in the fall or early winter (no leaves on the trees) this means it must have been taken fall 2007. If that date is accurate, potentially Bristol Palin could already have been in the early stages of pregnancy.

One item that has been stated about this picture is that it was published in several places, and then after Sarah Palin's nomination as VP, the dates were changed. It is hard to keep up with all of these allegations though web pages have definitely been changed. I originally stated that I felt that the photo could not be conclusive because, last fall, at this link , the Anchorage Daily News had a reprint of an article. Several months ago, it contained this picture in which the Palin family is clearly wearing the same clothing as in the other shot:

The link also contained the information that the story was originally published on 10/23/07, proving that the photo had to be taken on or before 10/23/07. Now, this page has been changed, and this photo is gone from the ADN link. Now, the information is that the story was originally published on 10/23/06. More sneakin' around?

I don't know why the story was changed and the picture removed but we have located this additional photo from the same shoot.

Todd's plaid shirt is clearly visible here and inside the house, the lighting is the same, as is Gov. Palin's sweater, hair, glasses and jacket.

This last photo allows us to date the entire shoot definitively to the fall of 2006. Why? Because Todd Palin is wearing a red Palin/Parnell campaign button. Upon enlargement, it is easy to see. And, unless one wants to go to ludicrous extremes (such as Todd was just so proud of this button he kept it on his jacket for a whole year) this dates the photo to at some point during the campaign, prior to the election. In spite of the "suspicious" date change on Anchorage Daily News, I believe that the date of 10/23/06 is likely for the shoot. (Or perhaps a day or two before... 10/23/06 is the day the ran the article initially, apparently.)

There are many compelling reasons to believe that Gov. Palin faked a pregnancy in spring of 2008 and at least some reasons still pointing to Bristol Palin being pregnant simultaneously.

The "green sweater" photograph of Bristol Palin was taken in the fall of 2006 and is not one of them.


1 – 200 of 390   Newer›   Newest»
kj said...

If there are still photo sleuths out there look at the pictures on the Alaska Stock website. There are a few pictures of SP when Piper is still fairly young. SP is standing next to Todd and is wearing a purple shirt, black pants and a black jacket. I would enhance that one compared to one of them where she is “pregnant” with Trig.

kj said...

I agree with you Audrey in regard to this picture, thank you!

LondonBridges said...

So there are three photos here. The first and third are relevant for comparison purposes. Keep in mind that it would not be that unusual for Todd & Sarah to wear the same outfits simultaneously on several occasions. Comparing #1 and #3: Photo #3 has a shadow so you can't compare the 2 pictures in terms of what Sarah is wearing under her jacket. I think Sarah's hair is a little different: her bangs are different, possibly the left side of her (as you look at her) hair/head may be a little different.

Todd's hair may have slightly different "grease" factors and to me he looks younger in photo #3.

While Audrey may be correct in her dating all the photos to 2006, I think a little more scrutiny may be waranted.

Here is a better version of the #1 picture:

LondonBridges said...

Comparing #1 and #2. Bristol & Willow look younger in #2 and in #2 Brisol's hair part seems to look different. Of course #2 is a small picture.

Daniel Archangel said...

Thanks again to Audrey for attempting to clear up this dead end. IMO, Willow is the easiest person to use to date the picture. She definitely looks younger than at SP's inauguration and pictures that can be reasonably dated in 2007.

The larger point is that while we are building a case, the opposition will use any mistake to discredit the entire effort. The false logic they employ is: "Well, they were wrong about that fact so they are probably wrong about their conclusions."

It's a very tough standard to meet in a open, public forum such as this. I recognize that I carry no particular weight in this community beyond what others decide makes sense, but I continue to urge everyone to check the factual and logical basis for any theories or speculation they post.

Audrey's has compiled on her web site many confirmable facts that debunk some of the theories that continually make an appearance in posts. The Bristol-baby-bump theory is just one of them. Please review with an open mind the material Audrey has compiled so that your posts add to the investigation and don't provide fodder for those who wish to call us nutjobs.

* * *

Although some people are certain that the girl in red/orange at the Bristol, or Willow, or Lauden Bruce, and the girl in white is Willow or Lauden, I think the differing opinions proves that the pictures are inconclusive. This is mostly because their faces are partially or completely obscured and Bristol and Willow look very similar as Willow continues to mature, looking more like Bristol each passing day.

It is easy to want the taller girl to be Bristol, because that raises questions about where Tripp was and seems to confirm that Bristol would no longer be pregnant -- a crucial piece of information to the investigation.

The two most important aspects currently of this investigation are:

1) Whereabouts and confirmation of Bristol and Tripp, and

2) Alibis for Bristol and Willow for Feb-Apr 2008.


jwc said...

Audrey, thanks for clearing this up.

Nova Land said...

What you've written about this picture seems pretty clear, and I'm inclined to agree with you on the date of the picture.

But this seems like something which, without too much difficulty, could be nailed down even more definitely. (And since so much energy has already gone into speculation over the picture, the more solidly things can be nailed down the better.)

If an article with pictures appeared in the Anchorage Daily News, then that can be checked and verified.

I take it from previous postings that there is a problem with getting this from the ADN web-site. But that problem would not affect the newspaper itself -- or microfilm copies of the paper.

Most university libraries in a state -- and some larger public libraries as well -- carry microfilm for their state's major newspapers.

While private colleges sometimes restrict the use of their libraries to students, faculty, and authorized visitors (i.e. someone who requests permission at the front desk before entering the library), the libraries at state universities are generally open to the public with no hassle. One just walks in, goes to the periodical or microfilm area, selects the appropriate reel, goes to a microfilm reader, and browses to one's heart's content.

If someone from Alaska is willing to go to a good library and check the ADN on microfilm for October 2006, we should be able to settle the question of the date once and for all.

Unknown said...

Thank you, Audrey, for clearing this up.

I think it is pretty clear that this picture was taken in October of 2006. The picture of Sarah & Todd that you linked was one that I'd seen at


It was published by the ADN in March of 2007 (and it also states that the picture was taken in October 2006).

I would love to believe that SP is guilty of everything I believe her capable of (not a fan, you know?), but I think it does us no good to try to fit what we wish to see into what actually exists, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Sometimes there is such a reason. In this case, I think there is not. There are so, SO many other odd and unexplained things to call her out on.

Ennealogic said...

TruthPatrol, can you provide a little more info on this image of purple shirt etc? I scanned all the photos on Alaska Stock and can't seem to find it.

Ennealogic said...

@ NovaLand, good suggestion.

And I'm not convinced that Todd would remove a button from his jacket with his last name on it... is that all we are going on?

Without more conclusive evidence, I'm not sure we can accurately date the green-sweatered pic of B.

For what it's worth, I was one of the people who saw the picture in question have its date changed -- we all thought it was monkey business at the time to change from '07 to '06. Unfortunately, that was before I was doing screenshots and Web page saves so I don't have proof.

Unknown said...

something i noticed just in looking over these pictures briefly, is that SP appears to be wearing a turtle neck in the third photo.. (or maybe it's just a scarf??) that she is not wearing in the other two.

that being said, the third photo helps account for the button Todd Palin is wearing in the second, and the rest of the clothing is so similar that I don't see it as being anything big.

sandra said...

I don't think the third picture is on the same day as the other two. SP has a t-neck under the blue vest, but in the other two you can see her throat.

sandra in oregon

Next Chapter said...

Thank you for addressing this again Audrey.

I had put the comparison photos together with this photo and the 2006 inauguration photo up on my web site. I went back to those photos on your web site and saw where you had dated the article as being 2007, but when I clicked on it, there was no photo and now it was saying it was posted in 2006. I know you are very good about making sure that you post the date correctly, so when I saw the date change, AND there is no photo now, I felt something was up.

This goes along with so many other people out there that said the date on this photo changed, and then ages were added to the kids to be the age that they would be after Oct 2006. (Bristol's birthday is in Oct)

I'm just not sure how strong the evidence would be with Todd still having the Palin pin on his jacket. The reason I say this is because I have several jackets that I wear at different times of the year depending on how cold it is outside. If this was a jacket that he pulled out that he hadn't worn since the previous year, he might still have the pin on and had just not taken it off. Sarah might even have approved of him wearing it since it could be viewed as him being sentimental.

There is also this picture taken of Sarah that said it was taken Jan 27th, 2007. She appears to be wearing the same outfit, glasses and earrings, actually, I would believe it had been taken the same day as the others, but here she has highlights in her hair that she doesn't have in the other pictures.

Dated Jan 27, 2007.

Crap! I just don't know with this one. I could let this one go with the pin on the jacket if there hadn't been such an effort to change the dates on it, and Bristol didn't look like her lower abdomen was more protruded in this one than the 2006 inauguration photo and Piper didn't look like she could be a year older than in the inauguration photo.

I agree with almost 99% of what you have on your web site and your blogs, but on this one, I'm just not sure.

But I respect your integrity with working toward trying to find the real truth here. That is the most important thing! I'm going to add this information to my web site and tell people to take it into consideration with this picture.

Now, I'm going to go eat a lot of chocolate because this is driving me up the wall! :)

moseyon said...

RE: TP pin.First let me say that I have no idea when this photo was taken.
In saying that... If that coat was not washed or dry cleaned it could have been hung in the cupboard with the pin still in.
I have a jacket in my wardrobe I have only worn a few times and it still has a name tag on it.
I'll probably remove it the next time I ware it.
Just my opinion.

Unknown said...

In the third photo, you can see (if you click it to enlarge it) that her neck is indeed visible. It's just a trick of the shadows that makes it look like a scarf.

kj said...

You don’t need to post this; links and everything being what they are; etc. I posted it on another blog that asked me for the info: here it is for you also: http://www.alaskastock.com/preview.asp?imagex=160&searchnum=0001&image=351PL+EX0015+001 and in that stream of pictures is SP in the same outfit on a couch with her whole fam-damn-illy!!!

Elizabeth said...

I have to agree with Ennealogic here, after all I'm still wearing my Obama button (but maybe because it just feels *so* good to wear it around Wasilla!)

Don't get me wrong, I think that there has been some funny business going on here, but I don't know if this is the right way to go.

PathosVastus said...

I have no doubt in my mind that Palin faked the pregnancy.
But like I've said in two other comments which I don't think get posted: OMG!! nothing is ever going to come of this with just the photo conjectures. Nothing.
If you want to go to your graves sounding like a group of nutty conspiracy theorists, then that is your prerogative.
I think your time would be better spent doing a little sleuthing in Alaska. The only way this mystery is ever going to be solved is if actual hard investigation is done. Sitting at computers and looking at photographs is going to take you nowhere.
There are other people on other blogs doing the same thing, but until someone actually gets up there and does the footwork, nothing will ever get solved.
Think of it as saving the country, because if the truth ever comes out, there is no way in Hades that this woman/pariah, will EVER run for president, as she is positioning herself to do now.
I think it's time to start working with a PI with time on his/her hands.

Unknown said...

Next Chapter, I think you raise some valid points.

But IMO, the fact that you have a photo where Sarah is wearing the same vest/outfit in January 2007 speaks to the idea that the original pictures were taken in October 2006. That would technically be considered the same fashion "season", for want of a better term, and the timeframe of January 2007 to October 2007 would not.

Even as I typed the above, it hit me as so utterly subjective, though, which leads me to wonder...where is there to possibly go with this issue, anyway?

If it's finally, conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be 2006, it's a moot point. If it isn't, and the slim possibility still remains that it's 2007, where does that get us?

More chocolate is always an option!

mdlw56 said...

Audrey, I really appreciate this post. Thank you for posting those photos.

I would like feedback on the face of Piper in both photos, as she is the one that would be growing like a weed. And, for what it is worth, the face of Bristol in the green top is closer to how she looked during the campaign than the other photo.


xyz said...

The story with the photo in question clearly is written during the 2006 gubernatorial campaign.

luna1580 said...

i agree with audrey about these photos.

looking at the comments it seems we are all willing to see whatever we want in the photos, regardless of what is there.

even to the extent that people are arguing that todd DID leave the button on for a year. which audrey right in the post thinks is "go[ing] to ludicrous extremes."

they live in alaska, it's cold there. so it's unlikely todd only wore that jacket twice in the span of a year people.

Patrick said...

There are times when conspiracy theories just go "too far".

It is true that we are constructing conspiracy theories here, and we have compiled already a lot of proof, and we will continue to do so. We are far away from the end of our efforts, and we are tenacious.

The conspiracy is that Sarah Palin's official birth story is wrong, because she is not the biological mother of Trig.

You can say this openly and without fear of reprisal because Sarah Palin has nothing, absolutely nothing available to support her story. She knows that, and her close companions know that, too. That's for example why we never had the honour to receive a message from Bill McAllister, or some nasty lawyers, telling us to shut up. And if we were wrong, we would deal with a whole army of lawyers by now. But not a single one knocked on our door. Not that we would be afraid, but we know by now that all Sarah can do is whine and complain in interviews. She doesn't even wants to show us a birth certificate for Trig.

That the MSM things that WE are the nutjobs is completely beyond me, and I am greatly worried about the state of the MSM. Some critical questions, and the house of cards would fall immediately. It is all a charade. The governor lied and got away with it. So far. But we will not rest until the truth is out.

That being said, the pictures that Audrey discussed here are not part of the conspiracy. They are from 2006. Still insisting that they are from 2007 really makes us look like nutjobs, because there is now undisputable evidence available that they are from 2006.

There are dozens of other points to attack Sarah on. Her birth story and all that surrounds it is full of holes and strangeness. Let's concentrate on the valid points. There are enough of them.

Casa Calvo said...

So this picture was taken in the fall of 2006? Can someone tell me where Track was in the fall of 2006? Thanks.

Casa Calvo said...

I just read the March 2, 2007 adn article where it was reported that Track just returned from Michigan. I guess I found my answer.

LondonBridges said...

Another item on which to focus is the exact shape of Sarah's glasses which are an item that changes often and faster than her children age. Are her glasses in pics #1 and pic #3 exactly the same? I can't be sure.

Littl' Me said...

I will not go either way on this.
For the record, I had seen the family pic with B. wearing the green sweater also dated as 2007. When I looked next time, it was 2006. I *STILL* don't remember how to take a screenshot! (Frustrated here!)

On the other hand, we *know* that SP is wearing the same outfits more than once and over a couple of years - look at the padded brown jacket, which she wore sometime in 2007, and then supposedly when she was past mid-pregnancy! (5:38pm)

Unknown said...

All right...so here's something different.

Randomly Googling various related search terms, I came across this page:


It looks like the "printer version" of the ADN story published on October 23, 2006 entitled "Fresh Face Launched Palin." As can be seen at the top, it includes a number of pictures-- including the outdoor/Bristol one. I'm guessing these were included in the original version of the story, but of course I can't be totally sure.

After doing a little more digging, I figured out that if you remove the 'v-printer' part of the URL, and then cut and paste the remainder of the URL together, you should be able to end up back on the original version of the website's story by following the revised link.

But in this case, doing so takes you to this page:


...which is the updated version of the story; the one that includes no pictures, for whatever reason.

And even that may not be entirely accurate, since I had already found this link:


...as the "updated" version of the story on ADN's website. Same article number (510447), but the URLs are just a little different. The two updated stories look identical at first glance, but I haven't checked them; nor have I checked the story on the "printer" page against the updated stories.

So I think what I'm seeing here is the pictures that were included in the original 2006 story, deleted off of the updated website story, but still left or cached somehow on the old printer version. I think.

Dinky P. said...

Looking at the pictures on Alaska Stock the ones in question look like 2006. Willow looks younger in the ones you have posted compared to ones on Alaska stock on various dates.

The sky is very similar in all the pic's. And Todd has that mad look on his face in almost every pic I have seen of him.

LondonBridges said...

The "printer story is interesting as the picture #2 at the top of the page looks like it would be a year earlier than the baby bump picure which was originally dated 2007.

Even more interesting is that most of the picures on this site are specifically dated, but pic #2 is not. The ADN is being careful to limit it's liability?

onething said...

Well, these pictures do seem to have been taken in 2006. And there's no problem with a kid going through a pudgy stage from time to time. But the main reason I took a recent interest in this picture is the comparison with the inauguration picture just 2-3 months later, in which Bristol looks markedly thinner.

I agree with Dangerous that Willow is the one who looks to have changed the most.

B said...

Gwynedd said, "Where is there to possibly go with this issue, anyway?"

Amen. So Bristol had a bump. That's what happens with low jeans and tight tops. Even if the picture were 2007, Sarah wouldn't let Bristol be photographed looking pregnant. Period.

I'm not saying it's wrong for people to question Audrey's conclusion. But even if Audrey is wrong on this one, it just doesn't get us anywhere. IMHO.

Patrick! I was worried you had left us. Good to hear from you. Do you know who the guy behind Molly is in your Xmas picture? Looks like Trooper Wooten, but they split in 2005 or 2006. Just curious. Not relevant to Trig.

kj said...

Karl Rove tactics do NOT work on all of the people, all of the time!!! This is my opinion only, SP is not the mother of Trig Palin (photos have proven that) & I do NOT believe Bristol to be Trig Palin’s mother so where does this lead me? Okay, let’s look who is the father then and go from there; that is how my mind thinks anyway. I believe that it was the “PLAN” to make everyone think that it was Bristol; if they believed that SP wasn’t the mother. People probably told SP that the little ruse would NOT work but she is obviously too stupid or whatever to think anything thru.

B said...

TruthPatrol said, "I believe that it was the “PLAN” to make everyone think that it was Bristol; if they believed that SP wasn’t the mother."

I said before that either Bristol is Trig's mom, or Sarah wants us to think that. I still believe the former, you the latter.

Are you suggesting Trig is Todd's love child, and she would prefer people think Bristol got pregnant than to think Todd had an affair? We have evidence that Bristol was a sexually active teen, i.e., Tripp or Tripp-to-be. We have no evidence of a girlfriend for Todd. Or, if you are thinking of Track as the dad, why would she rather have us "implicate" Bristol than Track? Help me out here.

luna1580 said...

"More chocolate is always an option!"

and thank god for that! :)

kj said...

Oh Audrey I forgot to say it before; like the title of this thread!

Amy1 said...

Yes, Patrick: I agree. Yes, Dangerous, let's weed out anything that isnt 100% solid.

Question to you all: If we had to make our case right now to Mr Sulzberger, owner and publisher of the NYTimes, we were about to ride up in an elevatior with him alone (2-min ride, tops) and we were limited to offering only a very small number of points, which would you pick? I mean two or three points (max) and no more, and this is our only chance to pitch it to him, what would you pick?

My choices:
1. The several pix that show an unpreg SP at the wrong moments, then the v preg SP on Apr 14: how can anyone explain that any other way?
2. The many irregularities in the MD letter show it to be a forgery or an extremely sloppy job.

Please! I ask you: can you do better? (I'm thinking you can, and we can, together.) What one or three points are bullet-proof?

The Dame said...

I believe the archived stories at the ADN no longer carry the picture with them.

An Accomplished Lady said...

Here's an interesting picture. It appears to be taken at around the same time as the others. Look at the girl in the orange holding the bottle. Is that the same girl? It doesn't look like Bristol to me.


CC ... said...

@ Ntreeg

Great find on this photo. I did not think it was Bristol anyway ... but this just confirmed it for me.

Not only did I not think it was Bristol, but since she has been sequestered for months why bring her out in front of all the cameras without "Tripp?" This just keeps the ruse going. La Palin is really enjoying this. When will the people of Alaska finally say enough of this and impeach her?? They certainly have enough "gates" to try to do so.

Ok... feel better now ... tee hee!!


luna1580 said...


GREAT pic addition! where is it from? are there any more from the same event?

Leadfoot said...

Ntreeg -- GREAT find! I was convinced it was Bristol until seeing this front angle. Now I am convinced it definitely is NOT Bristol.

preznit said...

fwiw, SP endorsed TX Gov Rick "Goodhair" Perry over Kay Bailey Hutchinson. wonder if there was any threat to spill the beans on her not so “delicate condition” before her wild ride back to AK

Unknown said...

Ntreeg referred to this site http://tinyurl.com/buktzo
for an alternate picture of the superbowl shots. When I pulled up the picture, I could zoom in with the little magnifying icon to see the girl in orange clearly. She does not look like Bristol. I pulled up another window and put some of the close-ups of Bristol from the "Bristol Palin Pregnancy" link on this site and looked at them side by side. Just does not look like her. However, the little girl in the green vest being held up by the large man looks exactly like Piper. I put a picture of her side by side and the are almost assuredly the same child. What that all means, I don't know, but if Sarah's father was the guy in purple and Piper was nearby, it could be Bristol in the orange after all. Someone else check it out and tell me what you think. It is very useful to size the windows so that you can see the pictures side by side.

Unknown said...

Addendum to last comment. Looking at that same photo, Sally Heath is right behind the girl who looks like Piper and smiling at her. She is wearing the same blue jacket that she wore in the hospital picture with "newborn" Trig. No idea who the big guy holding up Piper would be though. Does not look like Todd.

Punkinbugg said...

Oooh good picture Ntreeg!

Here is a closeup of the girl in orange.

She doesn't look like Bristol OR Willow to me.

Diana said...

I will keep this short and simple.

That is not Bristol at the superbowl event. Here is a group of photos from the event that show a completely different version of what was trying to be sold as Bristol.


Why do you think that the photos printed were selected? Maybe to look like Bristol and Willow? Even her hair was styled like Bristol styles her hair.

Now we know that it was not Bristol... but a stand in for the cameras! Maybe the same one that was at the Luncheon!!

So where is Bristol....and where is Tripp?

Just the fact that these particular pictures surfaced the way they did tells everything!!

Bristol is still hiding and pregnant...and Sarah was hoping this would stop the talking!

Todd is going to be in the Iron Dog race this weekend. Wonder who will be absent?!

Wasilla Resident said...

Those pictures were taken during Palin's run for governor. I remember seeing them in the Anchorage Daily News.

She was (unbelievably) elected governor in November 2006, so they were taken before November 2006.

An Accomplished Lady said...

Thank you. I found out yesterday that the Super Bowl spot was filmed at Elemdorf AF Base. I really didn't think they'd have anything about it on their site but checked it anyway for grins. I was surprised to find the picture. There are some others there but none to my knowledge quite that good.

The URL for the site is


I don't know whether Gov. Palin was trying to pass this mystery girl off as Bristol. It would seem odd if she was. You can't possibly stage all the photos at an event this big.

Who released the original ones to the media I wonder. Was it her office?

omo said...

anti - RINO : I'm glad to not be the only one who found the 2006 election unbelievable ! Seems like there was quite a bit of info at the time about possible fraud that has since gone down the memory hole . . .

Ntreeg -- great photo ! It sort of creeps me out that this girl would wear her hair the exact same way as Bristol, most girls that age are VERY individualistic about how they wear their hair ! She could easily have been used as a stand-in for any number of occasions!

Really makes you wonder what kind of control Miss Sarah has over not only her immediate but also her extended family . . .

Casa Calvo said...

That is a very interesting picture of the girl in the orange jacket. I was ready to swear that the side pictures were of Bristol until I saw this. Of course I can see in my family, female cousins who favor each other. Especially if they were wearing the same type clothes and did their hair the same way.

The man in front of the orange jacket and to the left of Mr. Heath is one of SP's brothers I think. Either a brother or a brother-in-law.

It's also interesting in the close up shot that she is the only one aware of the fact that her picture is being taken.

Molly said...

That little girl in the green vest is most assuredly (IMnotsoHO) NOT Piper. Piper is a lot older, has a larger face, darker hair. That isn't Piper, and that kid looks like she's no older than 3.

Nice big pic, though--kinda like a "Where's Waldo" with the magnifying glass thing.

Also quite emphatically NOT BRISTOL in the orange.

I really don't think we have to go so far as to suggest that SP has used this particular cousin as a "stand-in" for Bristol for this photo op or for any other event. I think reporters and other people--yeah, I mean US......mistake Palins and Bruces and whatever other cousins might have shown up for a SP event, without SP having to have some nefarious purpose in one of her nieces being there. To me, it looks like maybe the whole Palin clan was invited to the shoot, and whomever could make it came. I'm sure they wanted as big a crowd as they could get for the shoot.

I think it's going into "nutty" mode to suggest that this girl was put there so people would think it was Bristol. Obviously, from a straight-on shot, it's NOT BRISTOL. People only thought it might be her based on a fuzzy far away obscured shot, and the fact that it looks like Willow and Trig are in the pic too. I still haven't seen a straight on of the girl in white.

B said...


In case you aren't kidding about a quid pro quo for Palin's endorsement of Gov. Perry --

Palin knows Perry. He has been head of the Governors' group. Senator Hutchison has been in D.C.

Perry is as anti-choice as Palin. Hutchison believes in abortion rights, but with burdens.

The Republican primary may not matter. Urban areas have been trending Democratic. We'll see.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Ntreeg! You convinced me. I had been sure that the orange-jacket girl was Bristol. It's clearly not.

The Tribe of Sarah provides many possibilities-- lots of babysitters, lots of pretty faces that can be mistook for each other. hmmmm.

(and like Audrey (Patrick, et al) always say: the proof is in the photos.

B said...

Amy1 -- Good idea! She says:

If you had to convince the publisher of the NYTimes in 2 minutes that Palin didn't give birth to Trig, which three (max) points would you make?

Amy1's choices:
1. Several March/April photos showing SP not pregnant, followed by Gusty photo on April 14.
2. The MD letter, showing irregularities, suggesting sloppiness and maybe forgery.

I'm thinking, but what are yours?

Daniel Archangel said...

My two cents on ntreeg's picture find is that it isn't Bristol, but it's not the same person as shown in the other pictures, either. I think it's just someone with similar color hair and a similar color top.

The head-on-shot-woman has a distinct collar on her jacket, and her hair falls on that color. The other woman's top doesn't seem to have a collar and her hair is shorter. Also, they are in totally different positions in the crowd, and while people can move around, it is quite crowded and people tend to maintain their positions in crowds.

TruthPatrol suggest we try to find the father. That's an interesting, if impractical, suggestion. The father only has to be involved for a minute or two. Paternity can only be established with blood or DNA tests, which are more likely to rule someone out than in. Tracking the mother during pregnancy makes much more sense.

Discussing the topic as if pitching the story to a NYT editor imparts good discipline. To Amy1's list, I'd add
1) The inconsistencies and implausibilities in SP's Wild Ride story

2) Her refusal to produce affirmative evidence that she was pregnant and gave birth to Trig

3) Her use of Bristol's pregnancy with Tripp, instead of affirmative evidence, to attempt to debunk the reasonable conclusions on the internet

4) No confirmable alibis for Bristol or Willow for Feb-Apr '08

The weight of circumstantial evidence is much stronger than any direct evidence, but there's no confirmable direct evidence of SP's parentage of Trig, either.


NakedTruth said...

I thought all along that the young lady in orange was not Bristol. But of course, thanks to Ntreeg's picture, I can adamantly state that the girl in the orange is NOT Bristol.

I really don't care who the girl is. I think it is Lauden but that's just my opinion.

As I stated before, I believe that Lauden and other cousins fill in for Bristol from time to time and have been doing this for a while.

Remember at the hospital after SP supposely gave birth to Trig and the reporter stated that Bristol was there and did not look to have just had a baby but she refused to take a picture. Why?

Also remember the Feb. 2007 race that First Dude (Todd) participated in that some thought Bristol attended. Remember it being stated that Willow was in a video motioning for someone to come over for a picture and everyone thought it was Bristol who was being motioned over. Isn't it strange that the other 'girl' did not come over? Why would Bristol not join the family for a photo? Could it have been someone other than Bristol and taking a photo would have allowed us to point that out?

Also remember the Ziegler interview a few weeks ago. He stated that Bristol answered the door. Was it Bristol who actually answered the door? We will never know but this would have been a perfect opportunity to get a picture or a video of Grandma (SP), Bristol and Tripp.

I just find it rather strange that Bristol can sometimes be so 'camera shy' and other times not. Where are the pictures of Bristol from Dec. 07 - April 08? Where are the pictures of Bristol now? And WHERE IS TRIPP?!!!!

IMO SP's true intention is to deceive and properly substituting Bristol look-a-likes conveniently supports this deception.

luna1580 said...

as i conceded on the last thread, girl-in-orange is not and never was bristol. here are my pics that show why i thought it was (untill we got the great new pic, thanks again Ntreeg) and why it's not:


but i also agree that we don't know if she was or is being used as a "bristol stand-in." maybe it was just luck that they looked alike in the (blurry) side shot, in real life it was probably obvious to all that she wasn't bristol.

oh well, it doesn't really matter who this girl is. it would have been very interesting if it was a non-pregnant bristol out-and-about with no tripp in site, but it wasn't. so it's kinda meaningless :(

Unknown said...

I am wondering if Todd was the one who took the shot. Or if it was another Palin family member. I also find it curious that the girl in question is aware that the photo is being taken.

Emily Z said...

To the people who are freaking out about Sarah's "turtleneck" in the third pic.

Look at it again.

If you click on the picture (which makes it bigger), you will clearly see that it is a shadow. And you can see the edge of the v-neck that she is wearing in all the other pictures.

Unknown said...

In an aside...Andrew Sullivan today points to a blog as the source/finder/revealer of a scandal in the Catholic church (involving an already controversial priest who is now reported to have allegedly had a child.) My point here is that Sullivan attributes the "breaking" of the story, if you will, to a BLOGGER. Hence, there are very capable people in pajamas who are doing serious journalistic legwork. So, keep at it, Audrey. Who knows or cares why the MSM can't get off the dime on this one. I hope you and yours are gathering more information because, with all due respect, the analysis of noses, haircuts and shirts and who resembles which cousin who might be standing in a crowd is beginning to reduce this blog's credibility- IMHO. L.A. in S.F.

B said...

Ziegler interview on The View is on Youtube. Interesting nine minutes. The media focused on Bristol's pregnancy? I missed it!

kj said...

I believe that a normal gestation is 38 to 40 weeks for a pregnancy. I am going with April 18, 2008 as the original due date that was given to the birth mother of Trig. 40 weeks would mean that July 14, 2007 was the “conception” date. 35 weeks from that “conception” date is March 15, 2008. For what I’ve read (do not know if this is fact); Cathy Baldwin-Johnson works for Providence in Anchorage mainly with abuse cases.

B said...

MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel said...
"let me add a couple of comments made from the perspective of a housewife/ex-journalist who lives in Washington, D.C. First of all, I have encountered no men and very few childless women who have any interest at all in Trig, Tripp, etc. Those of us who HAVE given birth see warning flags at every turn. . . . Those of you who say that the MSM has little money or patience to investigate the obstetrical history of either Palin are correct. Many editors consider this beside the point and (their expression, not mine) "mean-spirited." "

So Amy1, on your 3 point plan, add the picture of Sarah pregnant with Track to the photo sequence to show what she looked like first time, which is when she would be showing least. That photo sequence convinces most open-minded women with children.

But first, we somehow need to get the male-oriented media's attention with something other than her pregnancy, which they feel is targeting her personally. Here I pull in Dangerous's points: If Trig is hers, why didn't she help ADN prove it when they asked her to? And why did she let the McCain campaign sacrifice her minor child rather than authorize an unambiguous statement from the doctor? Either Palin wants this story to go on or she doesn't have the facts to stop it.

I think those are my two points, but I'm still thinking.

kj said...

Still going along the 40 week gestation lines and using a December 27, 2008 birth date for Tripp Johnston: “conception” date would be March 22, 2008 and August 30, 2008 would be 23 weeks along or “about 5 months”.

kj said...

I think that some of the “players” in this deception are trying to protect other “players” in some form or another but I’m hoping that the truth will see the light of day and stop SP politically. With that said, maybe then she can go onto doing something that will benefit herself, her family & hopefully Alaska instead of doing damage control.

Leadfoot said...

Amy 1 - If pitching the story to a NYT editor, I would add this to your list:

-- NO TRIPP!! :)

I also don't think that Sarah used the GIO (Girl in Orange) purposefully as a Bristol stand-in. But I'd be willing to bet that once she saw the blurry profile pictures, she released them hoping we would all think it was Bristol.

Diana said...

Ntreeg: good one!!

There are more photos from this set to prove it wasn't Bristol. There are 6 or 7 really clear shots. Not from the side... and not with Willow and Trig shielding her view.

Straight....clear....and standing in the same spot with Willow and Trig!

It is not Bristol. And the photos that were selected to use were obviously used as an attempt to convince viewer to think it was Bristol...otherwise why use the ones they did.

It all seems horrible staged when you see the choices of photos they could have chosen to use and didn't

There are dozen photos of this event from the same photographer and it wasn't a family member that took them. But who decided which ones were put in the paper??

Everyone was there including Piper. But not Bristol. I will post the Piper one. She was on the other side of the group with some other children.


kj said...

In my opinion, the Texas trip was not a wild ride it was “as scheduled”. This is my opinion because the pieces fit: SP would be tired and could be resting in another room, TV crew ready to go & grandparents there to present the baby. In my opinion, Chuck Heath just said what he was told and wasn’t in on the deception in the beginning but maybe is now because that innocent “fact” became the “wild ride” story.

Toothtruth said...

Has anyone thought to look at Piper's teeth to determine the dates of these family photos?

Seven-year-old children grow and lose teeth, and they always smile in photos.

Betsy S said...

Okay, so it's Lauden. So what? Let's get the whole family out to make a crowd for the ad.
I don't think SP is clever enough to devise look-alike substitutes to drive us pajama people crazy. Remember that turkey!
I'm worried that a dinner with the Maleks might strengthen her resolve to keep quiet about Trig, Tripp, et al so that all this water goes under the bridge and we'll all forget about it.

kj said...

In my opinion, Bristol Palin’s February 2008 accident proved that Bristol wasn’t pregnant (yet) and SP had a choice to make: public adoption or fake a pregnancy. SP chose to fake a pregnancy when in reality it would have been easier to say I adopted this baby and all of the “parental rights” of the birth parents would never have been touched. Why would a birth father have to be protected? Oh let’s say that the girl he “knocked up” might have only been 15 at the time of conception. In my opinion, that is the whole thing: they are protecting the father so that he doesn’t go to jail for statutory rape.

kj said...

In my opinion, maybe the birth parents wanted to keep the baby until it was found out that the baby had Trisomy21. Dr. Johnson in her letter states that amniocentesis was done. “IF” that is true; paternity would be known at that time as well thru that same process.

Littl' Me said...

I think this is Piper in the front, with the magenta sweater:


omo said...

OT but there's a very interesting long article about the Valley Dairy (formerly Mat Maid Dairy) on Andrew Halcro's blog right now. They made contaminated cheese out of raw milk, among other things. (Gee, that sort of sounds like a metaphor for this whole administration).

Re : Bristol 'stand - ins'. I think this is very likely and totally deliberate and it would explain many curious 'sightings' which conflict with other realities. No real lies would even be required, very few people would recognize the difference in faces unless they knew the family quite well and it would be easy enough to explain that 'so and so is just traveling with us because at the last minute Bristol couldn't come' or some such if found out . . . Miss Sarah could probably even get away with saying, 'Oh, silly me ! I thought that was Bristol ! These girls just love to play tricks like that on me !'

What does it for me is the hair. If you have raised teenage girls, you KNOW that they will not deliberately and habitually wear their hair in the style of one of their cousins or close friends. Just doesn't happen . . .

Littl' Me said...

OK, I just realized that you see the whole slideshow. Anyway, Piper is shown twice (she is wearing a magenta sweater, is seemingly standing away from the others in the Palin clan, but close to SP), and in one of the pics, you can clearly see Willow in the white sweatshirt.


Littl' Me said...

OK, I just realized that this http://www.flickr.com/photos/33163903@N05/show/ shows a slideshow, not a single shot.

Anyway: In two of the pics, you can see Piper very clearly, because she is right up close to the camera. She is wearing a magenta colored sweater/jacket. She seems to be standing a bit away from the rest of the clan, but close to SP.
In one of the pics, you also have a clear sight of Willow in the white jacket.

anne s said...

This is a pro-palin slant on her giving birth to Trig.. article is dated March 08

Says pretty much the same thing we all know but it is interesting, especially the mention that neither Sarah Palin nor Cathy Baldwin-Johnson would comment on the article.


kj said...

ALL THAT FOLLOWS IS MY OPINION ONLY!!! In my opinion, Bristol Palin is the only one of the Palin girls that has been in on this whole deception. She has probably “liked” Levi Johnston for awhile and “maybe” they have dated etc. In my opinion, Bristol probably spent some time together at parties etc with her brother Track Palin. According to a few “stories” Track Palin liked to party. After the arrest of Sherry Johnston in December 2008 and looking at some of the MySpace pages of the Wasilla teens, it became my opinion that Track and Bristol Palin “probably” were in that crowd as well. When teens have parents that “don’t get it”, they can get away with a lot! The whole Track Palin enlisted into the Army because of the bus vandalism is only part of it, in my opinion! “If” the enlistment was because of the bus vandalism, it is my opinion that he would not have waited until September 2007 to go. Track Palin went into the Alaska National Guard and not the US Army, there is a difference! Why do I think all of this? It has been quoted by SP that Willow noticed the DS on Trig, okay that to me says that she wasn’t in on the deception; she probably really thought her mom was pregnant. Track Palin was sent away when everything was happening and Bristol Palin was sent away until she could be used as a “watch dog” for her mother. But during her “watch dog” period, in my opinion Bristol Palin became pregnant with “Tripp”. It has been stated in “stories” that the whole town of Wasilla knew that Bristol was pregnant this summer. Okay to me that makes me think ?really?; “if” that is true then Bristol could not have hid a “Trig” pregnancy. That is what leads me to believe that Bristol Palin is NOT Trig Palin’s mother!

kj said...

On a little bit of a side note, it was stated on this blog “somewhere” (I would copy it but truly just too lazy to look thru all of the comments); someone stated that Bristol would be seen on February 2nd, 2009! When did these Super Bowl ad “pictures” show up? That’s right everyone…February 2nd, 2009!

Betsy S said...

Anne S, that article is from September, 08. Can anyone find out if Jodie Kantor, Kate Zerniki, Catrin Einhorn or Kitty Bennett either are Republicans or have any children of their own. This article practically lists
the implausibilities and inconsistencies that are keeping us in our pajamas. Preposterous scenario!

luna1580 said...

anne s-

you are right that the article covers no new ground. still, these things are mind boggling.....

*SP told "some aides" she was pregnant before her mother or her children. ['cause that's normal, tell the closest and most important people first...]

*SP told her sister Heather Bruce (mom of an autistic son, lauden, and probably others) by letter! [no visit, phone call, or email from the two blackberries?]

*willow noticed trig's newborn DS features in the delivery room [highly unlikely -trig doesn't have a single "simian crease" on his palms, his face would be quite squished from delivery, masking the shape of his eyes, and why would willow look for these things anyway?] and was shocked SP hadn't warned them. trig's hand:


“So it was really great,” she continued. “I was only pregnant a month.” -indeed sarah, indeed

Casa Calvo said...

From the NYT article:

At her baby shower, Ms. Palin joked about her months of secrecy, Ms. Lane said. “About the seventh month I thought I’d better let people know,” Ms. Palin said.

“So it was really great,” she continued. “I was only pregnant a month.”

Aren't you pregnant the entire nine months whether other people know about it or not?

What a curious thing to say.

Shelby said...

To quote the March 08 NYT article quoted above:
But her son has given Ms. Palin, 44, a powerful message. Other candidates kiss strangers’ babies; Ms. Palin has one of her own. He is tangible proof of Ms. Palin’s anti-abortion convictions, which have rallied social conservatives, and her belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers. And on Wednesday in St. Paul, she proclaimed herself a guardian of the nation’s disabled children.

And anyone questions why Palin would go to such lengths to perpetuate this bizarre hoax rather than just announce to the world that her 17 year old teenager was pregnant?

Palin received invaluable political capital by claiming Trig as her own son. Compared to the huge political liability a pregnant teenager daughter would have presented in Spring 2008 as she was trying to position herself as a potential VP candidate that would appeal to the right-wing, 'family-value', abstinent only, no birth-control, fundamentalist demographic that was the only position within any political party where she could realistically position herself, and there is no question which path this woman would have picked.

If there is one thing that is crystal clear about Sarah Palin is that her political ambition comes first before all else, most noticeably her children and their well-being.

And I seriously do not know what the more disturbing story here is.
1. She lied about a pregnancy to protect her political image.
2. She sacrificed her under-age teenage daughter by humiliating her in front of the entire world to put to rest a persistent and substantial ‘rumor’ that could have been stopped, if it weren’t true, in many different ways.

Therefore, IMHO, the question here is not; did she or didn’t she fake her pregnancy. The real question is; how far and to what extreme means is this woman willing to go to satisfy her ruthless ambition. The answer based on either scenario above is that there are no limits to how far she will go.

So why doesn't the NYT write that story?

Dinky P. said...

Truth Patrol,

There could only be one reason for the deception. Much of what you are saying has truth.

I always believed Sarah knew she would be heading home early from Texas. Perfect way to slip into town, pick up a baby at one location and deliver a baby and Sarah to the one where she has connections. Without the media or anyone else knowing.

Also they probably did not even file an insurance claim due to her connections at Mat-Su. I am sure Bristol had the baby at the native hospital where her rights are protected since they are not a US government hospital. Or Cathy delievred the baby at Laudens house.

If there are no insurance claims on this that would be very interesting? Sarah had to know in advance that Bristol was preggo that is why she went to Laudens house.

To me Levi was kicked out of town last March because they were using him as a prop a decoy from the real father. They probably paid him and got him the job up at the slopes for his part they panned on him. Throwing his life under the bus because of an adults shady behavior.

There would be no reason to cover a teen pregnancy, because these days they are prevelant even if Sarah was choosen for VP. Things happen with kids. But not with youth and adults that is a different story.

kj said...

Okay I found the quote from this blog photos-part 2(there were other statements after it too): B said... Someone on Mudflats suggested we'll finally see Tripp on 2/2. Guess he'll see his shadow and then hide for six more weeks. JANUARY 25, 2009 11:53 AM

Yellowgirl said...

The question is, how do we get people in the MSM to notice Audrey's blog? I suggest that we all "digg" the Audrey's blog egistering (for free) at digg.com and publishing the article, then voting it up in the ranks. Are people with me? Since I am already registered there, I'm going to "digg" it now, and will try to post a link back here. If everyone who comes here "diggs" it, it may move the blog up to the attention of the MSM.


B said...

Truth Patrol,

Track turned 18 on April 20, 2007. If he fathered Trig by a girl who was not age 15 by 4/20/07, then he could have been prosecuted for statutory rape. Sarah could have faked a pregnancy to keep the girl's pregnancy a secret in order to protect Track from criminal charges. The girl and her family, as well as others around Wasilla, would also have to want to protect Track. Track joined the military soon after the girl found she was pregnant and has rarely been seen since.

Sarah wanted people to think she gave birth to Trig, but if they wouldn't, her backup was for people to think that she was covering for Bristol, since Bristol and Levi were both over 16 and no crime would be involved. So she sacrificed Bristol to cover for Track, having her leave school and the public eye when she would have been showing had she been pregnant with Trig. She has been hiding Bristol and Tripp to further the story that Bristol had Trig.

Track's girlfriend, age 15 or 16, traveled with the VP campaign as a babysitter for her son Trig. Todd's comment about wishing Trig had been born two days later on Track's birthday was not to have siblings with the same birthday but to have father/son with the same birthday.

Is that your theory?

Sarah Palin did not give birth to Trig. She faked a pregnancy rather than adopt him either because she thought that could undermine her job or because she wanted to cover for someone. A girlfriend of Track is a candidate. Bristol is still #1.

Daniel Archangel said...

With the additional pictures people have dug up, it is clear that the girl in red/orange is not Bristol and the girl in white is Willow. So this set of pictures doesn't really add to the investigation, but at least it isn't a distraction any more. Good work.

I've read many posts which read motives and states of mind into various pictures and circumstances. For example, many have commented how SP holds Trig or Bristol is affectionate with him. That's fun to speculate, but it hardly constitutes evidence because we don't get the whole picture. SP may not care much about Trig, but still be his birth mother, and Bristol may just be affectionate toward her brother. Conversely, if SP was VERY affectionate toward Trig and Bristol was indifferent, that wouldn't prove SP was his birth mother and Bristol wasn't.

I think more significant actions are probative of motive. I don't recall seeing much discussion of whether any woman -- or man, for that matter -- would run for national office with a special needs infant at home. This debate got drowned in the moralizing on both sides, but while anybody could run, I very much doubt any reasonable person would run. Nobody would expect someone to resign their position, but to take on such a huge responsibility with concurrently large family needs is already suspicious. I doubt even SP is so callous about her children's needs. (Spare me the debate her parenting skills.)

If Trig was a politician's grandchild, I can see it, but not his/her child. This is a large inconsistency in motive-driven actions that has been buried under politically correct discussion of judging SP on her choice. Frankly, it is just a strange choice anyone would make under the circumstances, ambitious or not.


Psyspace said...

Not sure what this means...if anything. These photos do somehow speak to SPs propensity toward wearing Winter clothing indoors. Note that she is the only one to have her vest / jacket on in all three pictures

Locasta said...

That looks like a pregnant belly. Maybe she wasn't pregnant with Trig, but she could have had an earlier pregnancy. Maybe she had an abortion. Or adopted out. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this girl has had serial pregnancies.

Amy1 said...

There used to be speculation that Hitler and Stalin had lookalike stand-ins -- for the boring faraway appearances, like standing on a balcony and waving, or posing in a photo when actually sick in bed, or drunk, or comatose. I never cared much, but what a concept.

Then, some years ago, there was a fictional piece in the New Yorker about a whole big bunch of lookalike imposters, all now out of work, several dozen for each of the big leaders: Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, Hitler. In the years after WWII ended, these lookalikes would have a convention each year. And then they started dying off. It was hilarious.

Just think of the fun if you sent your lookalike to some big-deal conference with the other three, only to find that each of THEM had done the same.

Ginger said...

If SP ever does show Tripp (or some other child), do you think anyone would believe her?

I wouldn't without proof.

sg said...

From the NY Observer:

"Threshhold Editions Acquires Sarah Palin Biography by People Reporter Lorenzo Benet"


"Lorenzo Benet, who penned People Magazine's cover story on Sarah Palin a few weeks back, has signed on to do a full-length biography of the vice presidential candidate for Threshold Editions, the conservative imprint of Simon & Schuster that employs former Bush advisor Mary Matalin and which recently published Jerome Corsi's bestselling anti-Obama book, The Obama Nation.

"According to Mr. Benet's agent, Jarred Weisfeld of Objective Entertainment, the book will be out sometime in February, which means at least three months will have passed since the election."

More at the url.

Some additional Palin anecdotes regarding the book at US News:

"New Sarah Palin Biography Goes Behind the Scenes"


jeanie said...

Hi Audrey,

Nice post, and I like your logic, but Ennealogic and NextChapter, I'm with you in the still-doubting mode. I swear that the Bristol-in-green portrait was here:


and labeled as 2007. It was also under the 'photos' link. When someone (I forget whom) mentioned the 'wayback machine' I tried it out on that site and I swear this photo was in the missing spot. It didn't occur to me to screen-snap it, of course. It seems unlikely that the photo would be mislabeled. Especially when earlier dates showed the inauguration (the 2006 one that has Piper looking apparently younger) on the 'photos' link. Why update with a picture that is almost as old?

Anyhow, just venting. And thanks NextChapter - eating chocolate sounds like a good plan!

Anonymous said...

The article from the NY Observer is from Sept. 2008.

TRAILBLAZER by Benet is listed on Amazon to be released on Feb. 17, 2009. There is no way that Palin got $11 million for that; it's a quickie thing that was thrown together before she became too obsolete (at least, that's what the Sept. article indicates the agent feared if she lost, per the Sept. Observer article).

Also, this is not the same D.C. attorney/agent who was supposedly hired by Palin recently to shop her biography. So I guess that was bogus PR, trying to make Palin look better?

BUT: And I guess we know now why/how People Magazine is completely in the tank for Palin. That explains A LOT of their "Bristol/Tripp" coverage, and Palin's weird "phone call" to them about Bristol and Levi dropping out of school.

sg said...


You mentioned Andrew Sullivan.

I've noticed too that he's had like a dozen posts over the past few days about a couple of anti-Semitic/pervy Catholic priests. Yet he hasn't had a substantial Palin post in a long time. In fact, he's had more posts recently about legalizing marijuana use than Palin.

Maybe someone who has a good email relationship with him could give him an update on recent findings at palindeception.com.

Craig said...


I'm not really sure how a Down's Syndrome infant would have to have a critcal bearing on a politician deciding to run for office. Especially if they have the financial resources and family support to do so.

Even though you threw in males almost as an afterthought, it seems like your query is more directed toward any female who should decide to run for a national public office. And what about a female who has the talent and ambitions to take on highly responsible management/executive positions in the private sector? Should they also be looked on with suspicion and be considered lacking in reason?

I don't know that you really want to go down that path.

B said...


Benet's book is on Amazon.com, to be released February 17, 2009. (He didn't get the message to delay it a day to be on the 18th, the Palins' favorite number.)

Trailblazer: An Intimate Biography of Sarah Palin

I'm sure the book doesn't say she faked Trig's pregnancy or lied about Tripp's birth. So People Mag has no incentive to reveal the truth until after their writer has sold many copies.

Rather than "Trailblazer," maybe:

Trail Mix: How Palin Reminds Me of Flakes and Nuts

SpecialMom said...

To Dangerous,

Please DO go down that path!

Having a special needs child-- and I speak from long experience -- means that one or both parents must sacrifice anything beyond the most minimal career aspirations.

Either that, or turn the child over to nannies, nurses and special care facilities, in which case you cannot claim to represent actual families with "special" children here in the real world.

Being the parent of a special needs child, and actually taking proper care of that child, means no normal career -- for life.

B said...

Craig, you're right that Sarah doesn't have to be Trig's primary caregiver just because she is his mother. She is allowed to make choices that many good mothers would not make, but some would.

Imagine, however, as Sarah herself suggested, a SarahPrime who was a Democrat and Obama's running mate. The people in Sarah's political base would be all over SarahPrime for not staying home or at least slowing down to bond and care for her special needs infant. (And for not paying more attention to her kids so she doesn't end up with another unwed dropout pregnant teen daughter.)

We don't attack Sarah for the same choices that her people, if not Sarah herself, would use against Democrat SarahPrime. Ironic.

sg said...


You said:

"Rather than "Trailblazer," maybe:

Trail Mix: How Palin Reminds Me of Flakes and Nuts"

Now THAT'S pretty funny! Good one!

luna1580 said...


i like you man, but i don't quite get your "dangerous" rebuttal:

"And what about a female who has the talent and ambitions to take on highly responsible management/executive positions in the private sector?"

surely you don't believe SP has "the talent to take on highly responsible management/executive positions" anywhere?

look at her state level management of the current village crisis, and her state's new $1.36 billion deficit.

do you think women in government/politics/private industry who actually DO have these skills think she means anything to their potential success?

SP is a gloriously public human failure, not a standard for women or men to live up to.

and yes, she did play up trig, as her baby, (which he may or may not be) for political capital on the front of the uber-conservative base.

this is not a slight against women who are public figures having babies, just a slight against SP presenting "her child" to get credibility when her actual actions and policies as a governor/mayor failed to earn her any credibility at all.

just sayin'

luna1580 said...


i think dangerous meant that most people, female OR male, who had an infant who's medical condition demands intensive early life therapy (and probably life long therapy/care) wouldn't put themselves in the running for very demanding political positions, if they felt "the life of a child, any child" was ordained by god as sacred -and thus deserving the best care possible. it takes a lot of time (and money) to raise special needs kids to their full potential.

as SP promotes herself as the ultimate pro-life person, you'd think that this would include the baby's quality of life AFTER it was born, as well as before. so it's debatable if any person, man or woman, could cope with the daily time demands of running a state or national government and providing for all of a "challenged" baby's daily needs.

if the parent could, then rock on!

but we've seen no evidence of SP providing trig with any special developmental services as she toted him all over during the champaign.

was it because she was overwhelmed? or some other reason? we don't know. this surely doesn't mean NO person could do justice to both demanding roles, just that SP isn't (to all appearances) right now.

Betsy S said...

Sorry, everyone, I left this comment on an earlier post,
so perhaps you might have missed it.
Bill Heller of the New York Times is accepting questions until February 6th. Check it out.
I left one, but maybe more than one might get a response.

onething said...

B said,

"Either Palin wants this story to go on or she doesn't have the facts to stop it."

I like a good, succinct sentence. That one packs a punch.

To Dangerous' list, I would add the lack of any pictures of Tripp. Using Bristol's pregnancy as confirmation that she is Trig's mother, stating Tripp was born at a certain date, and then hiding both mother and child while continuing to complain about bloggers, does not add up.

kj said...

This is from my earlier post: (B said... Someone on Mudflats suggested we'll finally see Tripp on 2/2. Guess he'll see his shadow and then hide for six more weeks. JANUARY 25, 2009 11:53 AM) I forgot to add that the date that post was written was the date of the Super Bowl ad taping. I find that odd!

Ivyfree said...

"“About the seventh month I thought I’d better let people know,” Ms. Palin said.“So it was really great,” she continued. “I was only pregnant a month.”

Aren't you pregnant the entire nine months whether other people know about it or not?What a curious thing to say."

She also said it was the easiest pregnancy she'd ever had. I know that's kind of an innocuous thing to say, but given the prevalent rumors comes across to me as kind of snarky, like a private joke.

Craig said...


My comment was addressing the broader insinuation that people, and more specifically females, who have a Down's Syndrome child, should be looked on with suspicion and be judged to be lacking in reason, by running for a national political office.

If the "huge responsibilities" of a job are the difference-maker here, then what about other jobs that have high levels of time and commitment, like executive positions in the private sector? What if the family has the financial resources and the support system within the family to handle such challenges?

This kind of prejudgement can start cutting a broad swath of people, unless you look at situations individually. To me, the spector of discrimination hangs over this particular angle of criticism too. I don't think males would be analyzed in this particular way.

I just don't think that a value judgement on the type of roles a female shouldn't take on if they have a DS infant, looks quite as appealing when it has to be applied to the broader population.

It won't be the first time that people disagree with me.

Unknown said...

Betsy S, there is a Bill Keller at the NYT, not a Bill Heller. Could you provide more details about what questions he's taking? I would prefer people not go spamming the NYT with questions unless we know for sure that they're truly being solicited.

So Betsy, please clarify.

Daniel Archangel said...


Put yourself in the position of a typical man or woman who has just become the parent of a child that is going to need special attention and extra care to thrive. Assume that you love your own child, even if you are successful in your career and you may have more opportunities.

Would you, a typical, caring human being, set aside all of your feelings and concerns for your helpless infant child for a job that will demand constant travel and round-the-clock responsibilities?

No matter what one may think of a person who would seek out such a career, that person clearly puts their career ahead of family. That's OK with me, far be it for me to judge someone else's personal and family decisions. That would be a rare person. Perhaps SP is such a person, and her career path and past decisions may indicate that. Of course, the same could be said of someone who would chose to fake a pregnancy to protect their family's reputation.

Add to the analysis above the circumstances of the special needs child being that person's grandchild, not their child. The internal debate that person would face is much different, with the special needs child playing on a small role in the decision to pursue the opportunity or not.

What I'm suggesting is that if we are looking for actions by SP that indicate she is not acting like a loving mother to Trig, but rather like a caring grandmother, we don't need to speculate on affectionate looks and gestures. The far more probative fact is that she chose to run for VP of the United States (!) despite being (or at least claiming to be) the mother of a special needs infant. If had her on the stand, I would ask her about that decision and how she felt about the prospect of others raising her infant.


luna1580 said...


i actually agree with you that the implication that women must care for the kids first and do any other job with the time left over is VERY discriminatory.

in a two parent home there's no reason the man shouldn't sacrifice his time -and thus probably career- to care for the children. i don't think parenting responsibility should be determined by gender, on that note i also support same sex couples raising kids. kids need time and love, period -not exclusively from "mom."

the point, as it applies to SP she is specifically USING her created image as "ultra-supermom" to gain political capital with her base. so if she's NOT actually spending the time to care for trig that his condition requires (and it will be a lot of time) then she's NOT "ultra-supermom." the problem is that it's all another LIE.

it's worth noting that todd may not be working right now. there have been serious questions about the ethics of him working in oil and SP making political decisions that could steer more money towards oil companies. because of this he stopped when she was elected, then in august '07 he went back, then a year later he was on leave again, right now i don't know.

the point is he could be the one spending time with trig, finding him therapists, etc. but SP never mentions this and he never even holds trig, not even in photo shoots! so it appears he's not. now maybe he is and SP is pretending it's all her to appear more amazing to her fans (another LIE)? who knows.

it is todd and sarah's job to raise this challenging baby, not bristol and willow's, some aunt's, or a nanny's -no matter where he came from.
because they've told the world he's their son. also they are the adults and the one's with money.

here's an article about ethical conflicts with todd working in oil and SP being governor:


here's a pro-palin article about how she balances motherhood and her job. at the end it mentions todd taking another leave from work, but it's from september '08.


sandra said...

With all the speculation about stand ins for Bristol, it's possible that a cousin or friend replaced Bristol on many of the "official" trips. Wouldn't that be fraudulent to charge the state or whoever paid for different person? What about the ID's presented at the airline counters?

We are so accustomed to looking at Bristol as she appeared during the RNC, she could be living next door to any of us with short blonde hair and glasses, and we wouldn't even notice.

sandra in oregon

Ivyfree said...

"We don't attack Sarah for the same choices that her people, if not Sarah herself, would use against Democrat SarahPrime. Ironic."

Sarah is definiely subPrime.

Betsy S said...

Morgan, Sorry about the typo H. I checked my letter, I got the K right there, at least. This is on the front page of the NYT website. I haven't read a lot of the answers, but most of the questions are of course about the economy and Obama's cabinet selections.

Bill Keller
The executive editor is answering questions from readers this week.
E-Mail a Question

questionsandanswers said...

I've been lurking here for awhile, wasn't going to post, but something seems off (even more so than usual).

Can someone explain to me how SP can say that her 5th pregnancy was her easiest, and that she was 'only pregnant for a month' if it's also true that she didn't tell friends and family about the pregnancy until much, much later because she struggled/had to deal with the idea that the baby had Down's?

I've never had a child, but if I knew my child was a 'special needs' child, I would let my family know so that a plan for care could be established before the baby was born. This is even more fishy considering how much it sounds like SP's family helps with her kids- her sister taking Bristol, and her mom doing whatever she needs her to.


Craig said...

Good grief, Dangerous! You almost make it sound like Palin is relegating her child to an infant life of a lonely crib in a dark room while she runs off to try to be a political power player!

This isn't a black and white proposition (either you give the child all the attention they need or you neglect them by running for national office).

And let's be honest. The VP job, though important, is not one that burns the midnight oil regularly! There are many daily demands and travel (not all of which has to be solo), but the Governor's office has had plenty of demands and time commitments too. And frankly, what better position is there to ensure top quality medical/theraputic care for a child?

I just don't think it is this easy to assess child love/support or child neglect, based on the level of public office being pursued. And again, I really don't see this argument being made so forcefully if the candidate is a man.

I think that, like any parents in any level of career, you can still control the amount of quality time that you choose to make with your children. Some parents who work a 9-5 weekday job may just waste their opportunities to interact with their kids by plopping them in front of a TV all night or all weekend, while some parents who hold more time-demanding jobs or multiple jobs may still want to make the sacrifice and priority to devote their limited off time to engaging with their kids. Parents who make the effort may worry that it still isn't enough, but kids are often perceptive and can appreciate the meaning behind the efforts. Some parents have to raise kids in isolation of close family, while others have a large extended family who are engrained with the inclination to support each other.

I'm in the tiny minority I'm sure, but I think some people are assuming some ugly and slanderous things about the quality of care and attention given to Trig, based on the viewing of public-related appearances and photo opps. Who knows, maybe there are some infant care issues going on behind the scenes, but some of the assumptions being made about Trig's care are uncomfortably speculative (at least to me).

Just my two cents.

omo said...

Ivyfree -- Miss Sarah's pregnancy might have been 'the easiest ever' while she was (or wasn't) having it, but it does seem to be causing her trouble now !

I agree, it sounds like an 'insider joke' to me. My husband's family is really big on these types of statements, it is a way they communicate in front of outsiders (and i have been married to him for thirty years and am still an 'outsider' to his mother). They think it's very clever and makes them feel superior . . .

Felicia said...

I think that a mother might realistically consider postponing taking on excessive career demands during a) a pregnancy with a special needs child and b)for at least a year or two afterward to make sure this infant is receiving excellent care while the family settles into the extra duties required by having a special needs child.

The Palins aren't uber-rich or anything, despite her role as governor. So some difficulties in learning to accomodate this child would be expected, whether Todd stays home with Trig or not.

But then most women who also choose to have high profile type careers are on top of the whole birth control situation. Most wouldn't even choose to get pregnant when their careers are becoming so demanding (even just as Governor.) But Palin, being of a religious persuasion, supposedly isn't planning her pregnancies - she's just having them. (If we are to believe that Trig is hers.)

The thing I find hard to believe just from the human heart perspective is the way she was behaving leading up to having Trig and also post Trig. Never in a million years would I subject my special needs infant to the cruel blare of the lights, the noisy circus of a convention, the sleep deprivation and overstimulation - none of that makes sense. To me it really seems inhuman. Have a babysitter look after him offstage, for goodness sakes!

Also speaking as a woman there is no way in hell that I'd take on a high profile career track and allow it to become even MORE high profile as a VP candidate in this situation. I would always be worried about my little one, period. I might decide to give it a try again in a few years if I felt my family was in a state of positive balance with caring for this child, but I wouldn't shuffle the whole situation off to the side like she has, nor would I hold him like a rag doll as she does.

So for me I don't see any discrimnation in the earlier posters' concept that the idea of dragging around a special needs infant and choosing such a high profile career path at this time in her life at the very least speaks to a person being very insensitive to the needs of her immediate family - whether the person in question is a man or a woman, I think it is a valid point. It speaks to the degree of ruthless ambition that Palin has and a real heartlessness.

jeanie said...

"with all due respect, the analysis of noses, haircuts and shirts and who resembles which cousin who might be standing in a crowd is beginning to reduce this blog's credibility"

I have to respectfully disagree - The fact that everything surrounding SP is so cryptic just reinforces that there is deception going on - and on many levels.

Re - the superbowl ad: At first glance, most (especially those of us with not-so-great eyes!) would have assumed that the girl in orange was Bristol. But the fact that people are looking very carefully and questioning the photo is important! And yay for Ntreeg! The front shot should definitively resolve the argument about noses and haircuts! Bristol was conspicuously absent and Tripp remains nowhere to be seen.

It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist - but it is very easy to prove something does exist. Just show us one freakin' photo!! Where is Tripp???

VN Media said...


No argument from me on your post. I concur that it's a somewhat shaky position to criticize SP for seeking career goals when she has a family and specifically a family where there is a special needs child. I'm not sure most people would apply that same criticism to a father of a large family or one with a special needs child.

kj said...

Really SP…really?

This is what I've been telling Bristol, before she gets married, is, Bristol, there are definitely gonna be tough parts in marriage. You have to look at those tough times and remember that you have essentially a business contract with this person. You've signed an agreement: You're going to be together. And you look at it that way as you work through the tough times, because I guarantee the better time is there on the other side. That's how we've looked at it.

One would think that God would be in some kind of marriage advice from good ‘ole mom! I thought my mom was pathetic!

Two meanings in Bristol's name: I worked at the Bristol Inn, and Todd grew up in Bristol Bay. But also, Bristol, Connecticut, is the home of ESPN. And when I was in high school, my desire was to be a sportscaster. ESPN was just kicking off, just getting off the ground, and I thought that's what I was going to do in life, is be one of the first woman sportscasters. Until I learned that you'd have to move to Bristol, Connecticut. It was far away. So instead, I had a daughter and named her Bristol.

Maybe SP should resign and fulfill her ambition of being a sportscaster! I say go Sarah go…cause I don’t watch many sports!!!

Ohio mom said...

To everyone who wants the MSM to pick up this story: it isn't going to happen. Our best hope is that the National Enquirer hasn't lost interest and is still trying to validate Trig's birth and Tripp's existence.

Here are some reasons the MSM won't touch this story. Please feel free to add your reasons or debate mine.

1. The MSM is run by men. Most men do not get how preposterous the story of the "wild ride" is. Men, obviously, have never been pregnant, do not understand that you can not have a flat somach one day, look very pregnant a few days later, and then appear not very pregnant again.

2. Sarah Palin is no longer on the national stage. They don't want to be seen as attacking a mother of a special needs child.

3. The MSM is overall very Republican. They parrot Republican talking points.

4. Everyone in the MSM remembers what happened to Dan Rather in 2004. Even though, the info on the Texas Air National Guard Documents was true (the Commander's secretary said she remembered typing documents like those with the same info), the documents themselves could not be authenticated. Rather lost his job and is suing CBS for millions. CBS is stalling, hoping that Rather will die before the suit comes to trial.

5. No one is going to risk attacking Sarah on the base of some photos that when lightened seem to show a flat stomach, when she could immediately produce Trig's birth certificate, several witnesses, etc. If this happened, MSM heads would roll.

6. I will be amazed if Bill Keller at the NYT takes any questions about Trig's parentage. The Times ia already being sued by the lady who a Times article insinuated may have had a "too-close relationship" with John McCain in 2004.

7. If the Enquirer is still on the story and gets someone to talk, only then will we see any interest in the MSM. Even then, they may yawn and say it's "old news."

For the record, I have always thought that Sarah Palin is an off-balance, power-hungry woman who took unacceptable risks to herself, her baby and the other passengers on the wild ride back to Alaska or is not Trig's mom. Audrey's excellent photo analysis has convinced me that she could not be Trig's mother. I don't know who is.

kj said...

More from the Esquire interview:


A courageous person is anyone who loses a child and can still get out of bed in the morning.

Are you referring to anyone in particular? Loses in what way?

Bored, anonymous, pathetic bloggers who lie annoy me.

Yes indeed…proud to be an anonymous blogger and by the way I am not bored; maybe you should get to know me! But in my opinion SP is the PATHETIC one! The lying apart; wow that is just amazing to be coming out of your mouth SP the one month pregnancy gal!

midnightcajun said...

The choices women make between children and career are never easy. Most women who choose to have ambitious careers choose to limit their number of children for the simple reason that if you don't, either the work or the children suffer. It's that simple. Having a special needs child only complicates that. And yes, I have a career, and two children, one of whom is hearing impaired. I made the choice to put children first, career second, but I'm not saying ALL women need to have my value system.

What I think annoys many of us about Sarah is the way she portrays herself--and is portrayed by her followers--as this uber-mother: She follows the Biblical pronouncement to be fruitful and multiply and doesn't abort a special needs child, all the while being this incredibly ambitious career woman. We are supposed to look at her and admire her for her mothering, yet we're not supposed to REALLY look at what she's doing and come to some independent assessments of our own about her mothering: ie, her son had problems with drugs and vandalism and had to go in the Army to escape prosecution, her daughter dropped out of school and got herself impregnated at least once and maybe twice by another dropout, and she drags this special needs infant child around on a brutal campaign at a time in his life when most mothers are carefully curtailing their schedules to give their newborns the routine they need, including being in bed by 7:00.

For a politician to be so duplicitous and conniving as to fake a pregnancy tells us that something fundamental is very wrong with that politician. For that same politician to then neglect the real needs of the resultant DS child all the while holding him up as a badge of honor that gives her special status as a Mother Theresa is just flat out creepy.

kj said...

Someone suggested on this blog that there was a girlfriend of Track’s traveling with the VP campaign; really??? I thought I’d watched and looked at everything about SP during the campaign; pictures or links of this mystery person you speak of?

Daniel Archangel said...


While what you say is true, remember that I've concluded that SP is not Trig's mother, so her behavior is consistent with her role as Trig's grandmother. I do find it inappropriate to drag Trig through the tumult of national travel. Exposure to so many people with uncertain health conditions makes no sense at all.

Further, Trig is clearly just a prop, like the rest of her family. I've concluded that it is an over-adjustment to show Trig everywhere, since she's claimed to be his mother. If Trig was not seen with her, that would raise questions she'd rather not answer. With Trig in the vacinity, she can claim that she can't stand to be away from him. Aw, what a great mother! She loves her child so. So much so that she wouldn't postpone her personal ambitions to tend or bend to his needs.

Let me pose this hypothetical. Female candidate X has an infant grandchild with DS. Would she drag him around the country (or state)? No.

Here's another hypothetical. Female candidate Y cares deeply for the welfare of her infant child with DS. Would she drag him around the country? No. Would she accept being away from that child for long periods? Unlikely.

Here's my final hypothetical and I'll let you respond. Female candidate Z faked being the birth mother of an infant child with DS. Would she have to drag him around the country to show him off in support of her claim? Yes. Would she take any other actions consistent with being that child's caring parent? No. If she had sufficient blinding ambition to seek national office, would she treat the child as a tool to reaching that office? You betcha'!!


Anonymous said...

Check the front page of NYTimes.com and you'll see Bill Keller is indeed asking for and answering questions of all kinds. He lumps similar questions together, then answers them. I have already emailed him about Palin and asked him why the msm has tiptoed around the rumors that persist. Serious questions of this nature are not spamming. They're exactly what we ask on this blog every day.

Sunshine1970 said...

OMG. Is this woman for real?!
Origins of Bristol's Name

I laughed so hard reading this bit from Gawker. My mascara's running. Showed it to some coworkers and they were on the floor too.

Anonymous said...

Just a thought and it is a quick one....could Bristol be looking a little rounder in the belly in the green jumper photo because it is her time of the month?

I know that my teenage daughter always complains of this when her time of the month comes round. I am sure that many of you as I do can identify with this inconvenience yourselves.

I am with Audrey on this one. There are many news articles out there of which the photos, although taken at an earlier date, are attributed to an article written or printed on a later date. I think that we should opt for the commonsense approach on this one and move on to much more provable theories as this is certainly leading us on much too merry a dance.

However, if the "green jumper brigade" (copyright...smiles), all of whom have a right to their own beliefs, are still hung up on this one they could become proactive and contact the journalists of the articles at the ADN and ask them for the name of the photographer or the source that the photographs came from and then ask him/her/it when they were taken. That should settle it.

Unknown said...


If anyone has a question about moderation guidelines or decisions, they are welcome to email me at thetokenhippie@gmail.com

If you send questions in via comments they won't get answered. If you have something you'd like to ask or just need a refresher on what few rules we have here, please drop me a line off-list.

VN Media said...

I'm gonna stand by you on this one Craig. Correct me if I am missing the point but I believe what you're saying is that those who criticize SP's choice to participate in the political arena and hold office are holding her to a different standard because she's a mother and that if the tables were turned, Todd was Gov and Palin was the 'first dud' his 'family duty' wouldn't be held to the same standard.

It truly is about the quality time one spends with their children. I speak only for myself in this respect but as a professional woman who has raised two happy children to adulthood, one of whom is legally blind, I made it a point to spend quality time with my family when I got home from work. Having a busy professional life does not preclude having a successful family life. Being a working mother made me a happier person and translated to a happier family!

I think the bottom line here is that the argument that SP had no business accepting a nomination as VP because she has a family and a special needs child is a weak one and that 'the other side' most definitely sees that as hypocritical when so many 'leftists' are conscious of empowering women.

SP shouldnt have accepted a nomination simply because she's not qualified! Methinks her family dynamics would not be much different if she were a stay-at-home mom!

VN Media said...

Ohio mom,

Two points:

SP is most definitely still on the national stage. She is making sure her name stays in the spotlight and is grooming herself for higher office.

The MSM (print and TV)is actually more liberal than conservative. Conservative talk radio is more prevalent and successful than it's liberal counterpart. There could be a number of reasons for that and likely due to the demographic which tends to listen to radio during the work hours.

That being said, I think you're correct that we won't see the MSM break this story but will jump on it when the NE does. I think the John Edwards story is a good case in point. My hope is that they're paying attention to these blogs and following up on the theories and scenarios folks here have posited and backed up with some pretty convincing photographic evidence. If there is any truth to any of these theories, in whole or in part, the NE will find it eventually!

B said...

Tamora, you give yorself away as being from the other side of the pond. (Welcome!) Green jumper aka green sweater.

Half Sigma said...

Nothing is going to be proven by looking at existing photos. Unless some new photo mysteriously appears, photo analysis is a dead end.

Only on-the-ground sleuthing in Alaska is going to figure out what happened.

Ohio Mom wrote: "The MSM is overall very Republican. They parrot Republican talking points."

Haha, very funny. The MSM is extremely liberal, which is why they won't go after Palin, because attacking a woman over woman's issues is off limits.

Trashy publications like the Enquirer are the only hope right now.

Amy1 said...

So is anyone going to ask Keller of the NYTimes a question? I'm thinking I might, and send him:

--this link,
--a link to our site here,
--remind him that Tripp is still missing
--and the MD letter looked fishy.

Any advice?

Anonymous said...

The National Enquirer is in as much financial trouble as all other print media. When I asked my go-to msm friend Bill how they could track down the octuplet mom in minutes and yet nobody gets nuthin on the various palin-gates, he answered, "It's Alaska, stupid." What he meant is that LA is crawling with stringers and papparazzi-- savvy scavengers, all with sources. And the average NYC or LA citizen knows how to report on what they know, whether for cash or not. Alaska might as well be Mars. And nobody right now can afford to send reporters to Mars.

B said...

Truth Patrol,

Re: Track's girlfriend, a source, but not a good source.

In an early Oct. interview with Hugh Hewitt, when asked whether Track had called her from Iraq (or wherever), Palin said he had not, but he had called his girlfriend and he was fine, etc. So Palin confirmed Track had a girlfriend, and she or someone close to her was talking to that girlfriend, maybe because she was traveling with her. That suggestion came from a comment on another blog that was discussing Alaska paying $1000/day (I think) for aide Kris Perry to travel with Palin. I was fascinated because I considered Track a candidate for Trig's dad.

I posted on this blog at the time:

Anonymous said...
According to a blogger at AndrewHalcro.com, Track Palin's girlfriend was being paid by Alaska to travel with the Palin campaign as a babysitter. If she (name unknown) and Track are Trig's biological parents, she would be a logical sitter. -B.

Here's the entry:
Submitted by Elliot Ness (not verified) on Sat, 2008-11-01 04:32.
She [Kris Perry] isn't the Palin's babysitter. It is completely appropriate that Kris travel with Governor while she campaigns, so there is a state person with her to act as the liaison. The Governor has two other people on the state payroll doing babysitting. Ivey Frye and Track Palin's girlfriend are the two doing the babysitting on the state dime.....not Kris Perry.

November 13, 2008 7:13 PM

jeanie said...

Thank you Sunshine! That made my day! The comments were even funnier than the article!


Windy City Woman said...

Anne S.,
Thanks for the link to the NY Times article.

Everyone, what do you think of these lines from the article:

"As Ms. Palin’s clothes grew tighter, Alaskans began to talk. She told several aides that she was pregnant, and a week or so later, her parents and her children, who called other relatives."

Which Alaskans began to talk? I thought "everyone" was in disbelief at the announcement. Palin herself said her clothes were getting tighter; I thought no one noticed. She told aides before her parents and children? Which aides? When? Have any of them come forward? Does anyone know?

And this part?

"For much of the summer, she carried Trig in a sling as she signed bills and sat through hearings, even nursing him unseen during conference calls."

How does the author know that she nursed Trig unseen? Obviously the author just has Sarah's say-so, since she was "unseen."

jeanie said...

Sheesh said. 'first dud' Freudian slip there? Or was that intentional? It was funny either way!

Craig said...


You are correct in that you are viewing this through the prism of a woman peddling a DS grandson as her own, which would be shameful in itself, outside of the question of whether a caring mother can have a time-consuming career while with a DS child.

Regarding your scenarios, I simply can't make a blanket statement that a female political candidate who cares greatly for her DS child would never think to include the child in a number of her travels. Way too many variables to be considered, as far as I'm concerned. (Child's specific DS-related health problems, level of traveling support people, type and length of travel, etc.)

And I have no idea what you consider "long periods" of seperation from the child. Days? Weeks? Months? And again, there are variables to consider. But in a broad, undefined way, I would guess that several days and up to a week or two (on rare occasions) would be seen as a pragmatic compromise by a good number of women in such high-profile/demand occupations.

But some women certainly may not feel that they can balance such obligations in good conscience.

I guess I'm a little more hestitant about labeling a person as unreasonable or uncaring without knowing the details of their specific situation. And using the phrase "dragging" a child around kind of implies a callous disregard that some may assume, but aren't in a position to truly know.

And again, this kind of judgement attack seems very gender-based.

kj said...

To –B: Just as I thought; there is no hard evidence of Track’s girlfriend traveling with the campaign! It is just more SP smoke and mirrors to cover for something or someone.

Windy City Woman said...

I think that Craig is right in that a man with a special-needs child would be seen differently than a woman. If, say, Obama had a special-needs child, I don't think anyone would say that he couldn't be president in that situation; people would assume his wife would handle the extra work. After 40 years of modern feminism, we still have work to do.

Regarding Palin's pregnancy, of course it was her easiest....She outsourced it! The real question is how easy was it on Trig's biological mom?

Anonymous said...


I sent a question in to Bill Keller this afternoon-- asking why they hadn't followed the two major stories swirling around Sarah-- the pregnancy rumors that have continued to grow louder and her extreme fundamentalist beliefs and the organizations involved.

The commentor above is correct. I think the liberal msm is afraid of crossing the line into women's issues. So I added the religious angle, as well.

The more people who ask sensible questions the better chance he'll address us. (So my reco. is to give him questions-- not leads or directives.)

Anonymous said...

I do think there are nat'l reporters still on the Palin baby story. You can feel that people are asking questions. Palinites are very defensive right now. They are trying to patrol everywhere on the 'Net, but there are too many Palin scandal- fires to put out.

Last night, on the US World and News Report Blog with Palin book info, some Palinite posted that he was part of TeamSarah, and it was "not true" that Palin had an illegitimate child, even though it was posted all over the Internet that she did!

Well, I had never even heard that Palin might have an illegitimate child (grandchild, yes, but child?)! So thanks to TeamSarah, I now know that rumor and have been Googling it. And it's all because TeamSarah has people frantically posting defensively on blogs far and wide, without really thinking about what they are writing; it must be part of some new reactionary "tactic" they are trying.

But it's backfiring and it shows how desperate they are. They are feeling heat. Someone's getting too close for their comfort. Who could it be?

kj said...

The thing that isn’t funny about SP’s one month pregnancy is “someone” was pregnant for 35 weeks according to the good doctor Baldwin-Johnson. Just another reason why I don’t believe Bristol is the mother of Trig; would SP really have an “inside” joke among friends if it was Bristol? If so, then just another example of SP’s bad parenting.

sg said...


You said:

"The National Enquirer is in as much financial trouble as all other print media."

Sadly, the Anchorage Daily News (part of McClatchy) is in trouble too:


(Story dated 2/5/09)

"The McClatchy Co., owner of the Anchorage Daily News and adn.com, reported a $21.7 million fourth-quarter loss today, reflecting the declining value of its newspapers, and said it plans deep cost cuts this year."


"Daily News publisher Pat Doyle sent a memo to employees today that said layoffs will occur at the newspaper and online publishing business, adding that the exact number hadn't been decided yet."

Let's hope they don't lay off Lisa Demer!

sg said...

Ohio Mom:

Two points re your comments on the MSM, one I agree with, one I disagree with:

Re #1, you said:

"Most men do not get how preposterous the story of the "wild ride" is."

You are absolutely right here. Being a man, I bought into the "frontier woman" meme when I first read about the "wild ride."

But one extremely important service that Audrey has provided (along with other mothers posting on this blog) is to educate ignorant dudes like me. Sometimes it's been TMI (LOL). But always informative.

Re #3, you said:

"The MSM is overall very Republican. They parrot Republican talking points."

I got a good chuckle out of that. Not knowing what you see or read where you live in Ohio, my guess is that the batteries in your TV clicker are dead, and the channel is stuck on Fox News.

Truthseeker2 said...

I thought I had heard that Track's girlfriend is Britta Hanson, who is now on SP's staff. But I don't buy the idea that Hanson is Trig's mother.

Unknown said...

This is a great site, and important because SP is clearly still hoping for national office and also is clearly (to me) a liar. Here's what really mystifies me -- why don't we hear more information from people in Alaska, either confirming or discrediting the Palin stories? Shouldn't there have been a lot of kids who knew Bristol, and would have known that she was pregnant with Trig, or not preghant then? Shouldn't there have been hospital employees who saw something? Why aren't we hearing anything from them? At this point, even confirmation of the official stories would be news, I think.

Darkefang said...

I checked Proquest for this article:

"'Fresh face' launched, carries Palin's career ; RISING STAR: Wasilla mayor was groomed from an early political age.; [Final Edition]
TOM KIZZIA Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage, Alaska: Oct 23, 2006. pg. A.1".

They don't archive images of ADN articles, but they do have the caption from article photographs. This particular article had one photo, with the following caption:

"Caption: MARC LESTER / Anchorage Daily News Sarah Palin and her family live at Lake Lucile in Wasilla. From left are her husband, Todd, and her daughters, Piper, 5, Bristol, 16, and Willow, 12. Palin's son, Track, 17, is attending high school and playing hockey in Michigan."

This obviously doesn't prove which photo was in the article, but at least we know that the article on the ADN website was actually published in October 2006. And we know that a photo accompanied it that was at least superficially similar to the photo in question.

onething said...

I'm not at all conservative but neither do I agree with that brand of feminism which says women and men must be the same. They aren't. Why did we go from women having few opportunities to trading in the understanding of society that motherhood is extremely important? Pursuing a highly demanding career or political office with a newborn infant is not the same for a woman as a man. The woman has breasts, for example, which produce milk. We can talk about quality time, but babies and toddlers need time, period. Time from their primary caretaker, who, hopefully, is breastfeeding them.

I would truly worry about someone encumbered with 5 children, from infancy to drugs-drinking-partying-pregnancy-vandalism and a couple in between, taking the reins of the presidency, which had at least a 25% chance of happening.

Now, here is another question that is puzzling me. I am sure I saw a picture of Trig some time back being held by Sarah or Todd, and he had blue eyes and light brown hair. But someone posted some pics of him yesterday, (showing that he has no simian crease in his hand), and that was a very dark eyed baby. So which is it?

onething said...

Amy 1, you said:

--this link,
--a link to our site here,
--remind him that Tripp is still missing
--and the MD letter looked fishy.

Any advice?"

Remind him re the missing Tripp that it is very odd when trying to quell rumors that one's child is not one's own, to say, "My 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, and can't be the mother" rather than to simply produce a birth certificate or some prenatal visit receipts, and THEN after announcing that the baby-who-is-the-proof has been born not show even one picture!

Ginger said...

If you haven't seen this yet, go to The Immoral Minority and read these press releases:

"Sarah Palin in a cage match with Rep. Jay Ramaras over relief efforts for Alaskan villages."

Nothing in the ADN as yet. Maybe tomorrow. Has she pushed the envelope too far? Guess we'll find out!

teal said...

...trying to stay on the same page, however, might I ask where you think this photo [2007] fits in the whole picture.

BP seems to be the same size as the 2006 - green sweater & she does not have the flat stomach shown from 2006 - in the yellow sweater...


dipsydoodlenoodle said...


With all the speculation about stand ins for Bristol, it's possible that a cousin or friend replaced Bristol on many of the "official" trips. Wouldn't that be fraudulent to charge the state or whoever paid for different person? What about the ID's presented at the airline counters?

We are so accustomed to looking at Bristol as she appeared during the RNC, she could be living next door to any of us with short blonde hair and glasses, and we wouldn't even notice.

The above statement got me thinking; do any of the expenses state the names of the "children" Sarah took with her or do they just say "3 family members" "3 children" - if so she 'technically' didn't lie. Also is it proved that there was actually all 3 girls present; or it just expenses?

Patrick said...


thanks a lot for the link!

Here is the link the "full" Esquire interview:


Well, it's just her complete answers without the questions...with more interesting stuff!

For example:

"Bored, anonymous, pathetic bloggers who lie annoy me.

I'll tell you, yesterday the Anchorage Daily News, they called again to ask — double-, triple-, quadruple-check — who is Trig's real mom. And I said, Come on, are you kidding me? We're gonna answer this? Do you not believe me or my doctor? And they said, No, it's been quite cryptic the way that my son's birth has been discussed. And I thought, Okay, more indication of continued problems in the world of journalism."

So, the ADN called her and asked "who Trig's real mum is"? That's pretty interesting indeed. Pat Dougherty has told his readers in the Editor's blog several times that he doesn't believe in the pregnancy conspiracy, and despite this, the ADN keeps "asking" SP... Oh, and she is not "gonna answer" this. How convenient! How transparent!

Margot said...


Would you and your group please examine the head of Sarah in the #2 picture and compare it with the Elan head? Look at the bangs. They are a perfect fit. Someone just lopped off her top knot. If you are working with your photoshop experts this might be worth a serious look.

I have a picture that precisely superimposes one on the other and it is a perfect match - sans top knot.

B said...

Truth Patrol and TruthSeeker2,

Bettina Hanson is the girlfriend. She graduated from high school with Track. I guess she took time off from college to travel with the Palin campaign. Maybe works for Palin now in Juneau while going to college there. She is called Palin's executive secretary here, with picture:


NO reason to think she is Trig's mother. Being Track's age, would not have been statutory rape either. Track as Trig's dad theory still possible, not likely.

Here is the post from September from Mudflats, reposted at Cajun Boy's blog:

***As the NYT pointed out, Sarah Palin has a history of bringing her allies into high places with her. And if it’s not shameful enough, she’s given Track’s girlfriend, Britta Hanson, some pretty big positions for an 18-year-old…. . . . On the Fox News Palin bio (trying to find it on YouTube), Piper inadvertantly said Track’s girlfriend (at least at the time of the taping in April) was named Britta.

A quick Internet search revealed that Britta Hanson was also a 2007 Wasilla grad. She interestingly enough is in a photo with Sarah Palin and Piper on a “tour” of the state capitol building because she was a page/intern in Juneau from Wasilla High (um, that’s not a commuting distance for a high school student, was she living with the Palins at the mansion?). And, isn’t it hard to get a page position there? I live in Oregon and you have to have some heavy duty ties to political families to get that type of internship at the state capitol.

Photo here: http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/031407/sta_20070314014.shtml

Then I came across Britta Hanson again as a governor-appointed commissioner for Serve Alaska. Now, this seems a little shady, no? An 18-year-old college student is appointed to a statewide government commission? Is this a paying job? In the brief bio it mentions Britta spent the spring in Spain? How did she get any work done for the Alaska commission if she was in Spain.


(BTW, It seems like folks from Wasilla are/were appointed by Palin quite frequently.)

She also won a Rotary Scholarship, which might be because she’s just a bright student. Doesn’t explain how this young woman from a very small town has the resouces to afford living in Juneau for a semester on her own or going to Spain for a semester. As far as I know, Wasilla is a very small and not a wealthy town. Is the governor aiding this young woman financially because she is dating her son??

This is all a little odd.***

B said...

Just yesterday --
***Judge: Palin used her child as a `prop'
Associated Press
Updated: 02/05/2009 02:30:33 PM NEW YORK (AP) - A federal judge presiding over a case involving an autistic boy took a shot at former vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for bringing her Down syndrome child on stage after a debate last year.
U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald made the remarks during a settlement conference with lawyers involved in a lawsuit against a luxury building in Manhattan. The parents of an 11-year-old boy are fighting a 25-pound limit on dogs, saying a big dog is medically necessary to help their son cope with Asperger's syndrome.

"That kid was used as a prop," the judge said. "And that to me as a parent blew my mind."

Such conferences are often held behind closed doors, but the remarks were overheard by a reporter for the New York Daily news.

Buchwald, 62, was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. ***

B said...

I checked out Kaylene Johnson's book, "Sarah."

Chapter One starts with a box saying, "Honesty became a nonnegotiable family standard."

The book ends with "the little girl who learned how to work hard, stand up for herself, and never tell a lie."

I'd say the theme is Palin is truthful. How the mighty have fallen. The Trig deception. The response to the Troopergate report that clearly said they found wrongdoing, and Palin said, "They found no wrongdoing." And more.

luna1580 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
omo said...

Truthpatrol -- Yes, the SP sort have NO PROBLEM making 'insider jokes' at the expense of their own biological children. If you have not been part of the family dynamic where the mother literally OWNS her children, you have absolutely no idea . . . it is creepy in the extreme, in particular the childrens' compliance for which mommy dearest rewards them . . .

Toby -- There WERE rumors about Bristol last spring, which SP even addressed at one point. We know now that the family is very capable of hiding one or more of their own when necessary or desirable to do so . . . and I am still very intrigued by the possibility of cousin Lauren being used as a stand-in, in a smoke-and-mirrors world that makes perfect sense . . .

Anonymous said...

On-Thread Thought:

Any one of us has confusing family photos-- mislabeled, no dates. etc.

Any one of us has family members who resemble each other. (One good public example are all the Kennedy cousins.)

But what astounds me is the lack of professional substantiation and statements from Palin's press office to address the anomolies. Imagine a Kennedy cousin misidentified in the NYTIMES. The next day there would be a correction and apology.

Ever since Sarah came on the national scene there has been deliberate obfuscation, in my opinion. I believe this is her tactic. Chaos, confusion, and deliberate obfuscation. Because this makes the media look bad.

When I read the wild conspiracy theories here I always have a feeling that the real story is much simpler. It all started with one lie: a fake pregnancy.

But what followed was an avalanche of further lies and deliberate obfuscation. Photos like this one (Bristol in Green Sweater) are just one part of The Fog of Sarah.

The Fog of Sarah will keep growing wider until we have facts, primary documents, and clear statements from a Press Officer. Not silly carping in a magazine article about hating bloggers.

midnightcajun said...

WHile I don't think it's fair to criticize Sarah for running for VP with a DS baby (that is a personal value choice of career-vs-child that every women must make in light of her own priorities in life), we certainly can and should criticize her for for using that child as part of a cynical, deliberate campaign to create an image of herself as a wonderful, caring, all-giving mother when what she was doing showed that she is exactly the opposite.

You're right, a male candidate with a new DS infant wouldn't have been criticized for running for office. But what reasonable male candidate would have dragged a DS child around to every campaign event no matter the weather or time of day? He would have left that infant home in the tender care of someone else, which would have been in the best interests of the child.

Sarah could have done that, too, (also!) but she would then have risked being seen as an 'overly ambitious woman" and a "bad mother"--not the kind of woman to appeal to the religious, anti-feminist, traditional base. So, in the interests of her own political career, she dragged that poor DS child around the country with her for two months. Worse, she deliberately held him up on stage at every event as a badge of honor both to underline her anti-abortion credentials and to visually help create this patently false image of her as a Madonna.

So she wants the best of both worlds: she wants to be seen as a good mother ("Here I am on stage with my baby; oh, look at me; aren't I a great mom just like you?") when in fact a mother who actually had her child's best interests at heart would have left the child at home and taken the criticism for "neglecting" him, or she would have postponed running for national office until he was older (and then left him home!)

Of course, in a few years, Sarah's age is going to catch up with her and she's not going to be very sexy. Since her looks and blatant appeals to sexuality (FM boots, winking) are all she has, it was now or never!

Littl' Me said...

WCW @ February 5, 2009 4:29 PM:

She 'could' be nursing, even if she did not give birth. I believe the LaLeche group has a device where you attach a tiny feedingtube contraption to your nipple, so the baby is sucking on the flexible feedingtube, in reality though, sucking the milk from a bottle... I tried to find the picture/link again, but couldn't. (check on google with something like adoption $ nursing or so...)

Diana said...

There are lots of comments on Sarah and her duties as a mom to Trig. However, since we believe he is not her child Sarah has no duties to perform. Trig is not her responsiblity.

If Bristol is the mom...she knows the responsiblities are hers. She is the one who would be taking care of Trig.

If there is a Tripp or a soon to be Tripp she will be living at home with her mom taking care of both of them.

Sarah can keep the appearance of being the mom and Bristol will be raising her own son.

In fact Sarah is providing a way for Bristol to take care of her two children since she is a single mom with no way to support herself.

So as far as Sarah sees it...she can pursue a career, be gone for extended trips and not be concerned with Trig's welfare.

And Bristol will be at Sarah's home taking care of her own child. Taking him to physical therapy, doctor appointments, and providing for his daily needs.

Sarah can have whatever career she wants...if she is NOT the mom. She doesn't seem to care that the charade doesn't quite fit anyones expectations of her. But when has she cared how things appear!

She has always seemed completely disconnected from Trig and/or any sense of right or wrong regarding her actions throughout this whole ordeal.

What I want to know is what happens in the future? If Bristol ever decides to marry...will she have to leave Trig behind!

kj said...

Here’s the thing in my mind…make of it what you will!!! Bristol was most definitely thrown under the bus…and “people” around Wasilla didn’t seem to care that she was pregnant with “Tripp” when it was “known” in the spring of 2008 (that would be March-June). So with that said…what does that make you think about? Bristol was a cover-up for a supposed “non-Sarah” Trig pregnancy…I believe that the “Tripp” says it all!!! Really, think about it! “If” Bristol was pregnant with Trig do you really after all we know about SP think that she would “let” Bristol get pregnant twice? I think it would be great if Track had a girlfriend! He might have had one that even had a ring on her finger, ya know, to make it real to a teenager? But the thing of it is this…maybe the teenage girl in question that “might” be the mother of Trig has found peace and a new “boyfriend” and has decided that there is a chapter (Trig) that needs to stay hidden. Just saying that stranger things have happened in this world…but why oh why fake a pregnancy on SP’s part? I do NOT believe it was for Bristol. I also believe that it is foolish for Bristol to believe that she is not a part of the deception if she isn’t the mother of Trig Palin.

sandra said...

Ever since I learned about SP taking credit for sending food to the villages after the bloggers took the initiative, I felt somewhat like a kid who did something good and my mother took credit for it. I wonder what it would be like to be one of SP's children.

sandra in oregon

Ivyfree said...

"Chapter One starts with a box saying, "Honesty became a nonnegotiable family standard."

The book ends with "the little girl who learned how to work hard, stand up for herself, and never tell a lie."

"I said "thanks but no thanks" to that bridge to nowhere.." "I sold the plane on ebay..."

Yeah, she never tells a lie except when she does.

kj said...

To –omo: Just wondering what you know about SP after making a statement like this?...
Truthpatrol -- Yes, the SP sort have NO PROBLEM making 'insider jokes' at the expense of their own biological children. If you have not been part of the family dynamic where the mother literally OWNS her children, you have absolutely no idea . . . it is creepy in the extreme, in particular the childrens' compliance for which mommy dearest rewards them . . .
I will say this only one time: FREE WILL!!!

Cynthia Rose said...

I know it's off topic but: today -
Todd Palin was found guilty of contempt of the Alaska State Senate (for ingoring the supoenas in Troopergate investigation)

Now just hope they actually do something about it - but at least this is something

Suburban Garden said...

Is the house in the background of these photos the one that has the shady dealings with the contractors for the sports complex?

leu2500 said...

re Discussion going on about SP being held by some to a different standard re Trig than a man would.

Remember during Edward's campaign when it was announced that his wife's cancer had returned and was terminal? They decided to continue with the campaign. But there were plenty of people who thought his priority should be his wife and kids, not the presidency, given her diagnosis.

Being president/VP is an extraordinary job, with extraordinary demands. Look at how it ages people. Voters have a right to ask themselves if they think the candidate is showing good judgement/"sanity" (I don't mean this in a clinical way, it's just some of our president's haven't been as well balanced as they could be, ie Nixon). Putting VP ahead of a special needs child, ahead of a terminally ill spouse can call this into question.

Ivyfree said...

"Bored, anonymous, pathetic bloggers who lie annoy me."

Lying, self-important, unethical wannabes annoy me.

Yellowgirl said...

Please, everyone, go to digg.com and "dig" Audrey's site..........



Unknown said...


Just an reminder, folks. If your comment doesn't show up immediately, please don't assume it was rejected. It may mean that we simply haven't gotten to it yet. We try to check the comments throughout the day but sometimes if we're busy doing other things they may sit for several hours before we get to them.

Also, if you've emailed Audrey and have not heard back please be patient. She's out of town on a family matter at the moment.

Diana said...

Wow...MSNBC is so smart. They showed a video clip of Sarah and Bristol with Trig in a grocery store tonight on Keith's show.

Bristol looked about 8/9 months pregnant. (Nothing like fake mom's belly).

I am sure that it is not a current video...but it is the first time I have seen her obviously very pregnant.

Now maybe we can get a date from MSNBC...Keith...for when that video was taken.

But I bet many people who saw it tonight...thought...is she still pregnant????

Good job Keith!

Windy City Woman said...

Regarding the rumor that Sarah had an illegitimate child, maybe they are referring to Trig's birth to an unwed mother, and Sarah and Todd adopting him.

How did Track's girlfriend get her job? The same way Levi jumped the queue and got that job "on the slope"--connections to the governor. Maybe Britta is Trig's mom and her job was in exchange for Trig, you know, like the Illinois ex-governor trying to trade a Senate for...something. It has been well-documented that Sarah finds jobs for her high school classmates and other friends, even if they are unqualified. Someone should investigate an 18-year-old getting a plum job, just for being Track's girlfriend.

Diana said...

Ok...here is the link to the Keith Oberman spot with Bristol pregnant... with Sarah and Trig in the store.


You will need to watch a short commercial first. It is the #3 video. Everything you can see is in the first 40 seconds of the clip.

I'd love to find out the date of this clip. I can't tell if this was shot before 11/4/08 or after. She is very pregnant...although as I look closer maybe 7/8 months.

Bristol has that pregnancy back sway that Sarah never had!

Maybe we can find out when this was filmed? Anyone know Keith's email address??

samper said...




Good day, ALL!

I was just watching Countdown with Keith Olberman (8PM EST, MSNBC, Friday, February 6, 2009).

Palin managed to get the #2 spot (I think... I know the nut in CA with the Octuplets made #1) in the Countdown because of how she named Bristol (after ESPN HQ in Bristol, CT). Wacky or what? But I digress.

They showed a video of Bristol and Sarah at a Wal-Mart/K-Mart type of store, at the register. Flash bulbs going like crazy.

It appeared to me that at the beginning of the clip, Bristol hands Trigg off to Sarah and then Sarah proceeds to pay for purchases at the Credit Card pad. This struck me as odd... why not let mom finish the transaction before handing Trigg over? Can anyone say "photo op"?

During the hand off, Bristol is shown to be VERY PREGNANT. I paused it to take a closer look.

She is wearing a black shirt of some kind with a gray sweater over it. It is quite tight. Therefore, you can tell that there is nothing under the sweater in the back, such as fastenings for an empathy thing or whatever. But then again, I assume she was wearing a bra and I didn't see that, either.

During the rest of the clip, they cover the video with an incoherent rambling quote from Sarah about how Bristol came to be named. It's difficult to see anything through the verbiage graphic.

Maybe some of you fancy graphics types can manipulate the video to take the verbiage out or bring the video forward to see it better.

They don't state what date the video was taken.

BUT... and here's the weird part... they are not wearing outer wear (winter) coats. While some shoppers may take their coats off for an extended shopping spree, this doesn't seem to fit the Palin "routine" of wearing outer coats indoors. Plus, it is VERY rare that I see the casual, every day shopper without their outer jackets on while shopping in the winter.

Further, Bristol looks way more pregnant than at the RNC. Some of you moms and nurse types out there can much better determine how far along she looks than I. If the video was taken right before Xmas, it fits. She's huge and obvious.

If not, we have a PREGNANT BRISTOL OUT IN PUBLIC, date unknown, which is curious, given her seclusion since Tripp "was born".

Other parts of the story are filled in with stock footage we've all seen earlier... getting on a plane, etc.


GOOD TO KNOW: MSNBC repeats Hardball, Keith and Rachel all night long, so if you missed the 8PM EST showing, it will come on again in rotation all night long(as they say... "Check your local listings"). I'm sure it's not on You Tube yet, but if I find it, I'll post a link. Better you try on your own TV's, though, for as clear images as possible.

My take: The lack of outer coats is to very well define Bristol's pregnancy, which might not be as noticeable in a heavy winter jacket. Wouldn't they have winter jackets on in December, let alone in January or February?

Also, Trigg, while still being a baby is certainly NOT a brand new one. Again, maybe Mommy types can determine his approximate age. I'd go back and take another look, but I pushed the wrong remote button and lost the tracking of the show (I was going back and forth while it was LIVE, not recorded). I'm recording it again now (10PM EST).

OK, kids... have at it!

Linda in Michigan

jeanie said...

This may seem way off topic, but bear with me. I just got back from my kids' high school talent show. One of the acts was this kind of comedy routine that included a bit about "the mainstream media" and how they always feature a guy with a tie and graying hair (he had props) and then he proceeded to do an 'example': "This just in! Sarah Palin's grandmother's neighbor's dog is pregnant, but Palin says it is her own dog's puppy so she is not qualified to be the vice president" (or something like that) It was pretty funny, but mostly surprising that even high school kids (these are perhaps a particularly savvy bunch) are still at least paying some attention to the rumors.

Or maybe you just had to be there... :)

Unknown said...

Tonight (Feb.6) on Keith Olberman, there was a video of SP, Trig, and Bristol in what looked like a Walmart (or another big box store). Olberman was commenting on SP's reasons for naming Bristol as recently quoted in Esquire. I don't know when the video was taken, but if you look at 34seconds after the video starts, Bristol turns to the side and is VERY pregnant. The shot is only around one second, but stop it and look. The real key would be to find out when the video was taken. If recently, Tripp is still in the hopper.

Unknown said...

I have to add something to last comment. Comparing SP's hairstyle with the Olberman video on pause, it is exactly the same. Also wearing what looks to be same black jacket. Just wunderin' if the TV folks were taking pictures of her "around town" the same day? That would be Jan 25(can't remember exact date) but one month past Tripp's reported birthdate.

pearlygirl said...

Small correction to Ivyfree,
Sarah never said that she SOLD the plane on ebay. She said "I put it on ebay" which is technically true. She doesn't say that the auction didn't work and had to sell the plane at a significant loss in a private sale. Don't forget that she also lost a nice amount of money paying for the listing fees whether it sold or not.

I truly cannot abide this woman, but we can only legitimately nail her if we use total accuracy of information. I do believe that
we might be at a small hiatus in this investigation. She's not as much of a hot topic as before so the MSM has even less reason to bring this issue back up. However, this does not mean that it is over. The next time that she tries a serious public run, I believe that her opponents will have some beautiful ammunition to smear her. If she thinks that her whole "Ayers/Pallin around with terrorists" rhetoric had merit enough to get the public upset, just wait until she sees what she's up against.

So even though we might have to wait a little bit, we should not give up hope nor go off topic on red herrings. The topic is that Trig is not her biological son--the reasons behind it are less important than the fact that she told this lie, continues to tell this lie, will sacrifice her own teen age daughter to cover for her lie, etc. is what really matters.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it."
Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

Frank LI NY said...

This was on KO's show last night. Is this Bristol? If so, she is prego there. Can anyone date this video?


B said...

Re: What Olbermann clip shows.

There is a Tripp. Birthday unknown. Maybe not yet.

No way that video was taken after 12/27/08. Sarah is not that dumb.

Anonymous said...

The video was originally shot in a Walmart store on the 12th October 2008 during the election campaign. There is absolutely nothing suspicious imho about this video. I will add that Bristol appears to be 6/7 months pregnant in this clip.

One thing that this video clip does prove is that the MSM consistently uses out of date still or moving footage to accompany new news stories or news articles. The green sweater photo is an example of this also imo.

P will uplift still shots taken from the clip onto his flickr page for for those of you who wish to see them.


B said...


The 3Amigos picture may well have been created by taking Palin's head from an Elan photo, but even if you could show that, it would just be a curiosity at this point. Gusty has said that the picture of Sarah with her shows Sarah as she looked that day, which is very pregnant. We have to work with that fact. Not that Sarah never looked very pregnant but that she didn't until mid April, when she went from near zero to 60 in a couple of weeks.

B said...

banana, yes, I believe that house is the Palin home built by Todd and buddies, with some connection to Wasilla sports arena. (But in a small town, how many contractors and suppliers could there be?)

jeanie said...

samper/diana - great link! I watched the video clip carefully and the one thing that struck me is that there don't seem to be any Christmas/Holiday decorations around. In my area, these go up at about Halloween and stay through Christmas at least. Could just be the angle, or that such a giant store doesn't bother to decorate, but it makes me think that this is post holiday. Of course, if it really were filmed AFTER Dec 27, then even the MSM would have been all over it...

Windy City Woman said...

SP quote from the Esquire article:

"A courageous person is anyone who loses a child and can still get out of bed in the morning."

I assume this is a reference to Joe Biden, who lost his first wife and one child to a car accident a number of years ago. If not, whom did she mean? Why did she bring this up? What was the context? Gee, she's actually saying something nice about Biden?

Or is she talking about Trig's mom, who gave him up (and thus "lost" him)? Hmm.

Couldn't Bristol have been wearing a fake tummy in the Olberman video? Of course, if there is no Tripp, and Bristol isn't/wasn't pregnant, they're going to have to produce a baby somehow, somewhere.

Anonymous said...


Thank you for your comment with which I heartily agree. Whilst some of the comments here do bring up some wild theories and appear to be coming to some very strange conclusions the majority are sensible and well thought out.

Your statement that we will only be able to "legitimately nail her" if we present "totally accurate information" is absolutely spot on. To this end Audrey is able to sift through the ideas and views given so generously by her readers. These added together with the research that she and her assistants undertake lead to conclusions which generally make for some very uncomfortable reading for anyone convinced that Sarah Palin is indeed the biological mother of Trig.

Thanks again Pearlygirl for your support.


auditor said...

I have been following your site for months and I am so grateful to your determination and all the others who post here. I would like to know if you watched Keith Olbermann last night as he had a video of Sarah and Bristol (pregnant Bristol) at a checkout counte? Did anyone see this? Any idea of when the video was made? By the way I had leakage with my first son and when I called my doctor they told me to go to the hospital immediatly the risk of infection is to great (as others have said). They had to finally induce me as I never went into real labor. I find Sarah's story just to bizare to be true.

Unknown said...

What I saw was a pregnant-looking BP offering to take Trig from SP. And SP shakes her head and sort of says no (photo-op after all!) Not only does BP look pregnant, but SP looks pregnant to me in this video clip!! Look at the protruding stomach on her that is holding up that heavy baby.

Again, what is it with these people, do they or do they not own a stroller? How many of us lug our kids around in our arms while shopping. And why oh why is that baby ALWAYS sleeping when they have him out in public. Is he ever alert? Does he ever want to look around? Sit up in a stroller, kick his legs, play with a toy in the stroller? What is up with that? L.A. in S.F.

Pat in Branson said...

Re the recent video: And AGAIN that baby is barefoot. He rarely has been seen wearing anything on his feet. Hey, I raised my boys in Alaska and I would never have taken them out during the winter without socks and boots on, much less barefoot.

Craig said...

That video clip of Bristol/Trigg/Sarah appears to be taken as a part of Palin's bus stop at a Gallipolis, Ohio Wal-Mart back in mid-October.

Truthseeker2 said...

I think the interesting thing about the new MSNBC footage showing Bristol pregnant in mid-October is how much bigger she was then than Sarah was at the same (reported) stage of pregnancy. The October photos of Bristol would be at 7 months, based on the reported December due date (and possibly less than 7 months, since there is still no proof that she has given birth yet). Compare Bristol's pregnant physique to SP at 7 months in the "Fun with Photoshop" photo, when SP's abdomen was flat as a board. Are we to believe that Bristol during a (reported) first pregnancy would "show" so much more than her mother during what she claimed was a 5th pregnancy? We're not that stupid, Sarah.

jeanie said...

Kathleen - Thanks for the 10/12/08 date.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 390   Newer› Newest»