Saturday, April 11, 2009

A Welcome and an Explanation

Over the last 48-72 hours, literally thousands of new readers have visited this blog. Hopefully a few are coming back to see what else is new. I've been so swamped the past few days answering emails, checking out all the places that have linked to us, etc, that I am still working on the third MySpace post. It will come soon. My goal is Monday at the latest.

I'd like to take this opportunity to make a post which will review for new readers some of the most informative posts from the blog from the last seven months. (Has it really been that long? I don't even want to think about that!)

First, though, I am a bit troubled how we've been presented in some of the articles that have linked to us over the past few days. It's ironic that after months of focusing on the question of whether Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Palin now almost a year ago, the post that brought the blog the most publicity was one that was - in fact - atypical for us.

The decision to bring the teen MySpace material into the dialogue was a difficult one. Obviously, if there was anything absolutely conclusive regarding the motherhood of Trig on MySpace I would have used it long ago, but because there is not, I had been sitting on this information. Most of the material presented I have had available since October. Even now I used only the most minimal material, and only quotes that directly spoke to Bristol and Levi's relationship and Sarah's credibility. These Wasilla teens were not some random kids my helpers pulled off of MySpace just because they lived in the same town; these teens were Bristol's close circle of friends, and frankly I used about 1% of the material we have.

It has always been the goal of my blog to prove that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy last spring and to leave the question of whom exactly Trig's mother really is to the "clean-up" crew. Over the last six months, I believe I have shown more than adequate proof of this, as follows:
1. I have shown photographs of her less than four weeks before allegedly giving birth to a six pound child in which there are no signs of pregnancy. Click here to read "The Nail in the Coffin," originally published in December.
2. I have shown photographs of her going from barely visibly pregnant to huge in four days. Click here to read "Some New Photo Evidence," published in October.
3. I have shown a screen shot of her approximately ten days prior to Trig's birth in which the shape of her belly is square.
4. I have demonstrated that, on countless fronts, she has told lies about the pregnancy. Read "Spin, Baby, Spin" from September and "Spin, Spin, We Almost Become Dizzy" from December to start. There are numerous more posts on the blog that go into other issues.
5. We have torn apart the "statement" given by the McCain campaign, allegedly from her doctor, that was passed off to the press as her medical records. Here's "The Purloined Letter" from February.
6. I have analyzed the story she told about her trip from Texas to Alaska, supposedly after showing clear signs of being in labor, and, I believe proved conclusively that it is medically absurd. Please visit the website proper for this discussion.
7. I have raised very valid questions about the Palin's failure to release a certificate which, in my opinion, basically proves that he was not born on April 18th, 2008 (regardless of who his mother is.)

I have done all of this - and more (a lot more!) - and still the mainstream media has refused to pick up the story.

I never wanted to "go after" Bristol, in spite of the fact that she was brought into the dialogue by Sarah Palin. Gov. Palin and the McCain campaign announced on September 1st that Bristol was pregnant, making her the most notorious pregnant teen in the world. (Read here: "Bristol Palin: Under the Bus.") They did it because it was the only way they could "prove" that Sarah WAS Trig's mother... tell us that Bristol could not be. The only thing more absurd than their doing it was the fact that the MSM let them get away with it.

However, lately, I believe that Bristol, along with Mercede and Levi Johnston, have brought themselves into the debate. Bristol was not honest with Greta Van Susteren about several things. Levi and Mercede appeared on the Tyra Banks show and provided the program with numerous photographs. One was a previously unseen photograph of Levi cuddling a newborn, Mercede hovering nearby. I'm sure most viewers assumed it was Levi and Tripp. I'm sure the producer assumed the same. It wasn't. It was Levi and Trig, and the photo was taken almost a year ago. You think that was not a shot across the bow to the Palins?

So why keep doing this? Because while Sarah Palin is history, she is history that still matters. I want an answer as to why a dimbulb who considers "What books do you read?" a trick question was nominated for Vice President of the United States. Newsweek just this week goes in depth about her selection process. She was "vetted" mostly on the Internet, according to Newsweek, and McCain talked to her for the first time on the phone only four days before he made his decision. A woman who stuffed a square pillow under her shirt and pretended to be pregnant (so as to avoid some really pointed questions about her own parenting and family values philosophies) less than one year later was presented to America as a credible vice presidential candidate, one seventy-two year old cancer survivor's heartbeat away from the presidency.

More will be coming on this blog soon. We won't be rehashing old material. But, I did want to draw our new readers' attention to blog posts that give a clear idea of what we've been doing and saying for seven months now.

I feel very badly for Bristol Palin, and would have preferred to just leave her alone. Forever. I get no pleasure whatsoever (I believe one columnist used the word "glee") out of publishing material that damages a young mother's reputation. I don't care who Trig's mom is and honestly I wish I had never heard of Bristol. But I care very much that Sarah Palin might have been vice president, and for that reason I continue to pursue this story.

333 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 333 of 333
anne s said...

i'm not trying to bring Willow into things ..as that is not the slant things are taking
But.. I did notice, while watching election coverage, Willow had some chunky legs.
I noticed this because I thought, how odd.. S.P. is pretty petite and they see well to do .. and then her young daughter in her prime.. has these seriously thick legs.
Maybe she just got chunky? dunno

Getty Images - Todd Palin (R), the husband of US Republ
Getty Images - Republican presidential candidate Arizon

here is the chunky leg one
McCain Camp Offers Talking Points on Palin Pregnancy - Washington Wire - WSJ

Could just be typical of kids left "alone" alot.. they tend to eat alot of junk food

Lilybart said...

Regarding the Iron Dog video, freeze frame at 30 seconds in. She is holding the checkered flag flat against her mid-section. I don't think she looks like she will give birth in a few weeks.

Windy City Woman said...

Let's assume that Bristol & Levi are Trig's biological parents, and that Sarah & Todd adopted him.

Several people have suggested that, when Sarah & Todd adopted Trig, that Levi (and, I guess, Bristol, too) not only signed away their parental rights but also agreed not to state publicly that they were Trig's biological parents.

Let's say that's so.

If Levi now comes out and confesses, what is the penalty? Besides, of course, Sarah being even angrier at him. Does he pay a fine, or what? Can Sarah and Todd sue him for breach of contract?

Suppose it was assumed that Levi is Trig's father because Bristol was dating him at the time, but later, say now, a test is done proving that he isn't. Suppose it is learned that "Johnny," or whatever Bristol's ex-and-supposedly-again boyfriend is Trig's father. Then what? Does this invalidate Levi's signing away parental rights, because he isn't the father and thus never had such rights? Would it invalidate his requirement to keep mum? Could Johnny then sue for custody, since he never signed away his parental rights? Would the adoption be invalid?

I would hope that paternity tests would have been done if there were any doubt as to who fathered Trig.

This could get even more soap opera-ish than it already is.

KaJo said...

There's a New York Times article on Sarah Palin (called by a certain conservative pro-Palin site, a "hit piece") that has the following paragraph:

"Recently, she has sparred publicly with Levi Johnston, the 19-year-old father of her grandson, who broke up with Ms. Palin’s daughter Bristol. On Thursday, while lawmakers hone the state budget, the governor is to speak at an anti-abortion group’s fund-raising dinner in Indiana. The next morning, she addresses a breakfast for a nonprofit for families like her own who have a child with Down syndrome."Doesn't it seem like there'd be a different way to phrase that last sentence that reflects the reporter has no doubt Sarah Palin is the mother of a child with Down syndrome?

Instead, it's a broader sentence, with a broader meaning -- "family" instead of "woman" or "mother".

This blog may be getting noticed by more in the MSM than realized.

Or I could be totally off base... :)

More Cowbell said...

Contract law isn't as inflexible as you'd think-- courts look at a lot of things other than the strict content of the contract. They look at whether one party agreed to the contract under duress, or if one party was in a substantially more powerful position than the other one. In addition, contracts are usually agreed upon by people in exchange for "consideration"-- both sides promise something for something. In this case, if there were an adoption, I don't think you could really have any kind of "contract" to keep quiet about it unless the Palins paid Levi an amount of money and he agreed that he would forfeit it if he talked. The closest thing I can think of that would apply in this situation would be a nondisclosure agreement, like you hear about when movie stars hire nannies or whatever and make them sign an agreement not to discuss what goes on in the house. In that case, though, the "help" is signing the contract in exchange for a job. Levi, as far as I can tell, didn't get anything from any potential adoption. Further, there are public policy reasons for not making teenagers agree to that kind of thing-- not only to the adoption but to the perpetual silence. Finally, I don't think that the issue of whether Levi is actually the father would have any bearing on any damages that the Palins would surely try to sue him for, if he spoke up. However, if we've seen one thing about the Palins, we know that they're vindictive and that they wield a lot of power in their part of the world. I'd think that someone like Levi, unemployed and without a lot of resources, would think twice about talking whether there was a contract or not.

Amy1 said...

WindyCityWoman: And a paternity test would be so easy for Levi to arrange: you can get the kits online, not that expensive, and it's just a swab of tissue from the inside of Trig's cheek (and Levi's, too) and then you mail it in.All in strict confidence. I would sure want to know if I were in his shoes (for both little boys), even if I never told anyone the outcome. Whatever the outcome, Levi could do what he wants about the info -- until someone else tests for the same info, if anyone ever does.

That's the thing about DNA testing: sure it has its erroneous conclusions some % of the time, as all testing does, but it's like an open file cabinet -- anyone can dip in later and redo the test. The DNA won't change. Not even for SP.

Amy1 said...

One of many reasons I have thought we should stay off the parentage of Trig -- beyond establishing that SP did not give birth to him -- is actually an anti-sexist reason.

(But, first, the main reason to stay out of that problem is to NOT be the ones to out the relatively innocent and young. I admit to wavering in my resolve around this issue, because like everyone else I have a favorite (unproven) scenario that I think is the real thing. But I find it useful to remind myself often that the family owes us nothing; only SP owes us the truth.)

But I just wanted to weigh in with this relatively minor reason why I would hate to see the bio-Mom of Trig outed (by anyone, ever): it's that then it's the same old sexist scene: the Mom is outed, usually because she has the physical work of the pregnancy. But the Dad can remain in the shadows, completely free, if he chooses. Doesn't matter how shameful it is that the mother of his child, the woman he claimed to love at one time, must not only do all the work, but she must bear all of society's scrutiny, which can be pretty cruel. The man can just abandon her to it. To say nothing of abandoning all the other responsibilities (financial, raising, all of it -- which is huge, life-changing).

I remain distressed and shocked by this inequality, which we mostly accept as normal in our society, although we occasionally spout off about it, like I'm doing now. This does v little to change the reality of 'the woman bears almost all of it, except whatever the man volunteers to do, if anything.'

I remain shocked that a man who knows he is the father would abandon a woman, esp when the going is rough, as it is in so many unwed preg situations.

And if we assume that the bioDad(s) of Trig and Tripp (in case they are not Levi) know who they are, can we think of them with anything but scorn and disgust, that they would be such weasels?

So to out the bioMom without at the same moment outing the bioDad -- which will never happen -- seems just so enormously unfair and wrong.

But I know I'm spitting into the wind here. Thus it is, and thus it will always be, in spite of our tiny steps in the other direction.

I have to say, in defense of how SP and family are handling it, that this concept of a big extended family taking care of its own is quite a wonderful antidote to this age-old sexist problem. Not that there aren't some huge hidden costs and complexities in this arrangement. Still, I have to give them some respect for just taking care of it, giving Bristol time for school and both little boys a home. Okay, a home populated by high-school dropouts, liars, drug dealers, burglars/child endangerers -- but a home nevertheless.

However, I also see that not everyone in this world has an extended family with sufficient means to take care of things this way. Almost every other case of unwed teen I have ever heard of personally has the pregnant Mom hanging out there alone. So, once again, the Mom gets any help others might volunteer, if they feel like it. Which in most cases is zero. That's just one of many reasons those Moms might want a choice -- their own choice, not someone else's choice.

Oh, well. Sorry. Just another insomnia moment over here.

Unknown said...

Per today's New York Times, Sarah "prays for 'the revelation of truth' to combat what she says are persistent lies about her and her family."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/politics/16palin.html?_r=1&hp

Doubting Thomas said...

Okay, let's break this down:
Upon being accused of NOT being the mother of 4-month-old Trig, and accused of covering for her then 16-year-old daughter by claiming the child as her own, VP candidate Sarah Palin responds NOT by releasing run-of-the-mill medical records which would name the obstetrician, the pediatrician, the on-call anesthesiologist, the nurses--in short, records that would name the dozen or so people who would have witnessed and could attest to the truthfulness of Palin's assertion that she did, in fact, give birth to Palin on April whatever, and St. Whatever Hospital in Wherever, Alaska.
Nope. To prove she is Trig's mother, she makes a public statement that, in effect, only serves to make it "impossible" that her daughter Bristol is Trig's mother, by asserting that Bristol is "five months' pregnant," making it "physically impossible" that Bristol is Trig's mother.

Think this through: Let's assume Palin is telling the truth: She's Trig's mother, and Bristol is five months' along.

If Palin had wanted to end all speculation about her maternity, the logical, simple, and irrefutable thing to have done would have been to release her own medical records, which would have provided virtually indisputable proof of the fact that she--and not Bristol--was the mother of that child.

And in releasing these records, she could easily have spared her daughter the embarrasment of being outed on an international scale as a "fornicator," and a teen mother. In other words, Bristol's current pregnancy is entirely irrelevant to Palin's authenticity as Trig's mother. So if she's telling the truth and can prove it, why bring Bristol into it at all? Why throw your pregnant, teenaged daughter under the bus and international scrutiny if you don't have to? If there's another, simple, honest way to end the potentially damaging speculation?

The simple anser is, there is no good reason.

Here's the timeline--let's see if it makes sense to anyone else.

Bristol left school under doctor's orders because she was suffering from mono, at a time that would have coincided with the end of her first trimester, were she in fact Trig's mother. She stays out of school for eight months, which would make sense assuming a second and third trimester and a month or so to recover her pre-pregnancy figure.

Bristol is photographed in an official family portrait taken in approximately November of 2007 sporting a noticable "baby bump." She then disappears from public view.

In March 2008, Palin pubicly "acknowledges" her pregnancy. All reports quote staffers and press who have been in contact with Palin over the past several months as expressing "shock" that she didn't "look pregnant at all."

There are many videos and photographs which seem to suggest that Palin wasn't "showing" in any recognizable way, despite this being her purported fifth child.

In April, ostensibly eight months' pregnant, Palin flies to Houston to deliver a key-note speech at a Republican convention. Sometime prior to her speech, she claims her "water broke," meaning her amniotic sac had ruptured, which is--as any woman who has gone through labor at least once knows--an indication that delivery is imminent.

Rather than go to the hospital to undergo what ANY OBSTETRICIAN IN AMERICA would describe as a "high-risk" birth, she stays and gives her key-note address. No one in the audience discerns any distress on her part, despite her assertion that at this point, she was in early labor.

(Note: I've had two kids. I've been in early labor. I could not have held a coherent phone converstion much less delivered a keynote address, in labor. But then again, I'm not Sarah Palin.)

But I digress: She ends her speech and travels immediately--NOT to the nearest state-0f-the-art Houston hospital where her Down syndrome baby could be delivered safely, but...to the airport. Where she boards a commercial flight with a duration of some 9.5 hours, back to Alaska. Complete with a layover in Seattle.

NONE of the attendants on that fligh recall Palin as being in any distress--or even physical discomfort. In fact, none of them remember remarking Palin's supposed pregnancy at all. But maybe they were just a particularly unobservant crew, even thought the governor of the flight's destination state was on board. I'm sure they barely noticed her at all--a 44-year-old governor, 35 weeks' pregnant, in preterm labor, with a security detail and her husband and assistant and press aide in tow. They'd be easy to miss, don't you think?

Some 2o hours after her water broke in Houston (in first mothers, you start to get worried at 12 hours. In a high-risk pregancy, you worry immediately. In a fith pregnancy that's considered high risk, you don't even travel after month 7), Palin and her entourage arrive in Alaska and deplane. They then get into a car and drive past not one but TWO state-of-the-art medical facilities that could have handled a high-rist delivery of an at-risk infant with flying colors. Instead, Sarah Palin opts to push on for an additional TWO FULL HOURS so that she can "deliver her son Trig" in a podunk hospital in rural Alaska, "attended" by her friend and political appointee Cathy Baldwin-Johnson.

There, she delivers Trig.

Three days later, Pailin returns to work and announces that Trig has Down syndrome. She claims that she and her husband knew of the child's condition prior to his birth and chose not to terminate the pregnancy in keeping with their "prolife beliefs."

And there's where it gets even fishier: If Palin in fact did know that her child had Down syndrom and that the delivery would have been considered "high risk" for any woman because of the medical complications that arise for Down syndrome infants, ON TOP of the fact that this was her supposed "fifth" delivery, why would any responsible mother chose to travel for 22 hours in active labor rather than check into a world-class medical facility in Houston?

Why wouldn't any of the hundreds of people she would have encountered that day remember a woman in recognizable labor?

And finally, why, in an attempt to dispel once and for all the rumors that she was not in fact Trig's mother, would she not release innocuous and accurate medical records attesting to that indisputable fact and instead impugn her own 17-year-old daughter?

IF Sarah Palin is Trig's mother, Bristol's "subsequent" pregnancy is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to that fact. Totally. Brig's maternity is a matter of medical record, which is easily released and utterly indisputable.

But the only defence Palin's camp can put up is not proof of her own maternity but the supposed "impossibility" of Bristol's maternity of Trig. Which is an extremely roundabout way to prove the point, and simultaneously throws her teenaged daughter under the bus by making her pre-marital teen pregnancy an international news story.
One more time, PALIN outs her daughter as an unwed teen mother IN DEFENSE of her own maternity of Trig. If she were Trig's mother, there are absolutely indisputable ways to prove that (the release of her medical records) that don't impugn anyone else. There's no reason to "prove" that Bristol "couldn't be" Trig's mother.

And if Palin is Trig's mother and can prove it, WHY OUT HER DAUGHTER? Why subject her 17-year-old daughter to public humilation if it wasn't absolutely necessary?

The answer? Because it was. There are no medical records that can prove that Sarah Palin is Trig's biological mother, because she isn't.

Okay, once again because I'm not sure how clearly I've made the point: When faced with the politital obligation to verify one's own maternity of a child, why would anyone incorporate the medically and factually irrelevant fact of their under-aged daughter's unwed pregnancy as proof if they had ANYTHING ELSE to offer?

If Sarah Palin DIDN'T HAVE to make her daughter the object of scrutiny to prove she hadn't lied, why in God's name would she do so?

And that, as they say, is the the proverbial Fat Lady singing.

Amy1 said...

I bet y'all saw this 4-15-09 NYT piece on SP. Halfway down:

"Recently, she has sparred publicly with Levi Johnston, the 19-year-old father of her grandson, who broke up with Ms. Palin’s daughter Bristol. "In next-to-last paragraph:

"She also said she prays for “the revelation of truth” to combat what she says are persistent lies about her and her family."

Patrick said...

Here is a highly interesting clip from the start of the Irondog race, taken on 10th February 2008:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fXBIiQXHcw

Does anyone see a pregnant Governor here? Because I don't.

Patrick (PD research)

LondonBridges said...

Re: The green bump shirt picture.
I think it is 2007. Changing dates is a major part of the Palin Deception to cloud the Truth. I think Todd usually wears that shirt when he wants to dress up; he is wearing it on other pictures from other dates. IMHO the biggest clue is Piper. Since she is the youngest, she will change the most in the course of one year. I think she looks older in the green pic than she did in 2006.

NakedTruth said...

It's on now! Like his mother, Levi Johnston has hired Rex Butler to represent him. Read what Gryphen has to say.

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/

Wow! This is getting good.

NakedTruth said...

Another interesting article about SP.

Can you believe that a reporter from Faux News can be this fair and balanced? I was surprised.

link:
http://tinyurl.com/dav99d

dumb said...

I'm sorry Patrick but I can easily see a six months pregnant governor in that pink coat.

There is even a point in the video about 3:32 where she is holding her stomach, and the coat is not moving inward.

There is no way you can deduce from that video that Sarah was not 6 months pregnant at that time.

Thats why I say all this photo evidence you present is not damning because when someone who is not so involved and maybe not blinded as much sees a photo you present as evidence, they are not convinced and can see maybe she is pregnant in those photos.

Sorry

questions_and_answers said...

Thanks for the link to Alaska Stock. I couldn't for the life of me remember enough to find that the other night when I was putting the timelines together. I'm going to be busy today, but I'll try to see what I can put together later using the new pictures people have offered.

I know people have already mentioned it, but the immoral minority has a story on Levi retaining counsel. I find it interesting that this becomes a story as SP's going out of town.

NakedTruth said...

AlaskaGrown said:

"Thats why I say all this photo evidence you present is not damning because when someone who is not so involved and maybe not blinded as much sees a photo you present as evidence, they are not convinced and can see maybe she is pregnant in those photos."

This could also be said for people like you who are convinced that Sarah gave birth to Trig. A picture of Sarah with a flat stomach at 6 months pregnant has not at all convinced you that she was not pregnant. Works both ways.

The naked truth is always chasing a well-dressed lie.

Punkinbugg said...

Doubting Thomas: Nice summary, but SP was in the Dallas area last April, not Houston. (Specifically, the Gaylord Resort in Grapevine, TX - near D/FW airport and many fine hopitals.)


Say -- how's this for MSM coverage?

Quote from the New York Times: "She also said she prays for “the revelation of truth” to combat what she says are persistent lies about her and her family."

There you have it, fellow posters -- Sarah Palin is praying for us to reveal the truth!

Let's hope her prayers are answered!

KaJo said...

Amy1 said...April 15, 2009 11:48 PM:
"[...] I remain distressed and shocked by this inequality, which we mostly accept as normal in our society, although we occasionally spout off about it, like I'm doing now. This does v little to change the reality of 'the woman bears almost all of it, except whatever the man volunteers to do, if anything.'
I remain shocked that a man who knows he is the father would abandon a woman, esp when the going is rough, as it is in so many unwed preg situations.
[..] So to out the bioMom without at the same moment outing the bioDad -- which will never happen -- seems just so enormously unfair and wrong.
But I know I'm spitting into the wind here. Thus it is, and thus it will always be, in spite of our tiny steps in the other direction.
[..] Oh, well. Sorry. Just another insomnia moment over here.
That's OK, Amy1...No insult intended to the guys who frequent this blog (really!), but...

I've often thought how much better off the world would be if all the political systems and societies of the world would be so much better off if the power were maternalistic rather than paternalistic.

That still doesn't help in the situation where we'd want to keep a woman like Sarah Palin from grasping the reins of power. But at least WE women wouldn't be ruled by our gonads! (again, sorry you guys here, you know I'm talking about those OTHER drooling idiots who think SP is "the hottest governor" and "provocative")

KaJo said...

To AlaskaGrown...April 16, 2009 6:31 AM:
Don't apologize for your disbelief, AKGrown. It's OK.

You said: There is even a point in the video about 3:32 where she is holding her stomach, and the coat is not moving inward.

As I pointed out before, it's obvious in another (still) picture that she's wearing a jacket or zip-front sweatshirt underneath the coat. And probably a turtleneck sweater under THAT. I wouldn't expect the coat to "move inward". But I WOULD expect the coat to be very tight across her abdomen, and it isn't. When she stands up straight, it hangs down perfectly flat in front, no bulges.

You also said: There is no way you can deduce from that video that Sarah was not 6 months pregnant at that time.And there's no way you can deduce from that video that she WAS pregnant.

Checkmate.

Anonymous said...

AlaskaGrown

Sarah Palin looks no more pregnant in the picture that you offered us than she does in this one. lol

http://img.wonkette.com/images/thumbs/61e57d89129e69280405ad61eccd87a2.jpg

Kathleen

Daniel Archangel said...

There's a BIG flaw in AlaskaGrown's conclusion that SP "looked" pregnant and that he can "easy see" that she was six months pregnant under the thick winter coat.

On March 5, 2008, several weeks later, when SP announced the "pregnancy", nobody could tell. Quoting ADN on that day: "she simply doesn't look pregnant." That's conclusive, contemporaneous eye-witness testimony confirmed by dozens of people who knew her and watched her closely.

We know from later pictures, even after the announcement, that she didn't look pregnant. So there's no way she looked pregnant under a winter coat several weeks earlier.

Our brains do that, and AlaskaGrown is not the only victim of cart-before-the-horse interpretation. I was guilty of it myself initially with the Bristol-green-shirt photo. We *want* it to show what we have already concluded, so our minds trick us into accepting that and only that interpretation. But the facts are that the green dress photo is from 2006, not 2007, unless Willow got younger. I have another picture from Winter 2006/07 where Willow looks exactly the same as the Bristol-green photo.

AlaskaGrown claims to see signs of a pregnancy from a still photos or video when nobody else could or did who say her move in the flesh. Bx2 proponents see indications in still photos when her classmates and friends, several months later, didn't see anything obvious (or hundreds of people decided independently not to talk about it, even today).

You can see how credibility for your arguments won't be taken seriously by outsiders or MSM.

Step back and view the whole picture. The weight of the confirmable evidence points to Willow. Only the deception of your own conjecture points to Bristol. You have to make stuff up to make it true.

Dangerous

midnightcajun said...

AlaskaGrown, go look again at Patrick's link to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fXBIiQXHcw

paying careful attention to frame .44, where Palin holds her glove against her stomach. Not only is the coat not curving out as it would over a 6 month pg belly, but you can see a shadow where the coat is being pushed IN. Then you get a great profile shot at 1.28 where you can REALLY see that the coat goes in.

Sometimes the truth hurts, but we ignore it at our peril.

pearlygirl said...

Q & A --What a fabulous photo line up. Thanks

Alaska Grown--I can see why it could appear that she is preg because of the bulge in the coat. Coats such as this are stiffer and often buckle at the zipper like this when you bend. However, there is no buckling or bulging when she is upright. As is so often stated here, it is easy to appear pregnant when you are not---especially if you choose the wrong clothing (for example---anything with an empire waist can make even the thinnest person with the flattest abs look preggo) But it is not easy to not look pregnant when you are. I am skinny. I stayed tiny when pregnant--not even a single stretch mark and carrying twins---but a pregnant belly is distinct. It can be faked but not hidden (and it is definitely not SQUARE) Despite my disagreement, I'm glad that you here. Please understand that disagreement is not criticism. This blog is one of the best out there because we encourage discussions and differing opinions.
I also have to commend Kajo's response

Diane-(Hope your grandchild is bringing you lots of joy)-thanks for the links to the videos--I finally got around to watching them (the "perceived whine" about how Hillary should just suck it up and stop complaining was particularly amusing) I had seen bits before but didn't realize that this was during the "pregnancy" I cannot believe how she leans over. As stated above--I was small but at 5 months, I distinctly remember getting ready to go out to the theater and struggling for 10 minutes to buckle ankle straps on some dressy shoes before having to ask my husband to do it for me--I couldn't believe that I could not bend or reach--there was no way to fold over without it hurting or squishing the kids--(just for emphasis, I do aerial fabric and trapeze for exercise so I'm quite flexible and I'm 3 years younger than Palin)

It would be interesting if someone at the special needs dinner would ask Palin why she took such a risk with a DS pregnancy during the wild ride. Parents of such children know how important it is to give birth in a facility able to deal with high risk deliveries especially since she "knew" before she delivered.

Just for giggles, my WV is BUTSY as in Ya but... ;-)

B said...

Dangerous said,"Bx2 proponents see indications in still photos when her classmates and friends, several months later, didn't see anything obvious (or hundreds of people decided independently not to talk about it, even today)"

Whereas the LONE Willow proponent has NO still photos to back him up, except that Willow appears to have entered puberty. And Willow's classmates and friends aren't talking either.

And Bristol was older, disappeared from school, was the subject of rumors and so much so the campaign outed TriPP, was dating and sexually active according to Audrey, is now one of the baby's primary caregivers, had her boyfriend behave tenderly toward the baby in photos and public, etc., etc., etc.

I agree with Dangerous that hanging beliefs on a single photo is not good. The original Daily Kos story made itself too easily dismissed by claiming that green sweater photo was proof. And I agree with Dangerous that saying TriG's birth mom could only be Bristol could have been the end of this story if someone had disproved Bristol, so we've left open other options. But I very much disagree with Dangerous that he alone has truth on his side and that we so-called Bx2 proponents are delusional(my word, not his).

B said...

Kathleen, You made my day! Sarah had that pink coat for many years, as we saw in photos. One of the things I quickly noticed was that the fabric is relatively stiff. Not surprising that wheh she leans to hug Todd it moves like that.

AlaskaGrown, I hope you noticed that the nice bloggers here (I'm not including myself) were courteous to you and took you seriously and pointed out why they did not belive that photo proved pregnancy.

If your point was to explain why we haven't made our case to those who "believe" Sarah, you made it. They will find one photo where they believe she looks pregnant and use it to support themselves. They will ignore that the non-pregnant easily can look pregnant but that the pregnant cannot so easily look non-pregnant, which is what Palin continued to do for over a month after your favorite picture (until Frank & Gusty).

B said...

Amy1,
I really appreciate your post about sexism. I struggle here.

I would see a pregnant teen daughter and resulting abortion or grandchild as unfortunate and not timely, and would not want undue criticism for however we handled it. But Sarah's choice to deceive and to play Wonder Woman with labor reinforces unreasonable expectations for real women and is an afront to the truths that birth mothers know and live.

Feminist Pat Schroeder said, "I have a brain and a uterus, and I use both." A woman should be allowed to integrate work and family as she wishes. Palin has played this card very cynically, as if a DS pregnancy or pregnant teen daughter make her better qualified to be in power. But using a uterus (whoever's) is not a substitute for using her brain.

Lilybart said...

I just watched the Iron Dog footage, lots of it and the still from the Elan Frank video.

She is so NOT pregnant! The still photo with the rectangular belly just made me angry all over again!!

Such a fake. If I had to show people ONE photo to support my case, I would show this one.

FYI: the Elan Frank video has been taken down by FOX, but I guess you knew that?

B said...

Amusing comment on Gryphen's post about Levi hiring a lawyer:

cooky said...They never should've voted Levi off the island.

VN Media said...

Excellent summary Doubting Thomas. Thats really it in a nutshell. At this point I don't even think I need more 'proof'. The wild ride story has always been the smoking gun as far as I've been concerned. Its damning if its faked and its damning if its the truth. And to further my disgust for this woman she subjected her daughter to scorn and humiliation to prove a point when simply providing documentation that she was Trig's mom would have quelled the rumors. But I'm convinced that there are no medical records available to prove that point because she isnt the biological mom.

I'm also convinced that Palin is done as a credible/viable candidate for any national office. Her bumbling efforts have been her demise. She'll always have an appeal to a small ultra right-wing base and that may serve to provide her with the cred to become a Fox News show and nothing more.

Amy1 said...

Wow! Rex Butler! So we don't need to put paternity test advice into this blog any more. Go Rex!

Here's the AP version.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Amy1 for the Rex Butler/Levi/custody update. I knew (and hoped) Rex B's been on it this whole time. Keep us posted!

jeanie said...

AlaskaGrown -

"Thats why I say all this photo evidence you present is not damning because when someone who is not so involved and maybe not blinded as much sees a photo you present as evidence, they are not convinced and can see maybe she is pregnant in those photos."

Unless a person has no clothes on (at least not in the abdominal area), you really can't 'see' that they ARE pregnant! I certainly never doubted that Demi Moore was pregnant - though I wouldn't put it past the makeup artists in Hollywood to fashion a very realistic naked faux pregnant belly. On the other hand it IS possible to tell if a person is NOT pregnant (at least not 6+ months pregnant) when they are fully clothed. Um - flat stomach? Spongebob abdomen?

So no matter how dramatic the photos appear (see - hallway and the 'three amigos'), if there are clothes involved, the photos do not constitute evidence!

Tully said...

Gryphen said he might set up a paypal account to help Levi with his legal expenses. If he does, he can count me in. If we all gave even a little, it could make a difference. If the Palin/Heath clan thought they could just Levi the bum's rush, they are so wrong.

Amy1 said...

Tully -- I liked the paypal idea too. Not only for the money, but also for the "votes" aspect. Even a $1 contribution would make a statement, if aggregated.

By the way, I sent my favorite graphic to the author of the 4-15-09 NYT piece on SP, but I've never yet received an answer from the NYT, not even when I gave them embarrassing typo info, WHICH THEY USED pronto. So it must be a policy.

(Are you getting tired of that graphic? I sure am. But that is the least of our worries.)

tennesseeteacher said...

Thanks for your excellent post at 12:00 am, Doubting Thomas. The information you've summarized in that post alone is enough to make any logical, rational, thinking person pause and reflect on these circumstances. Absolutely no photographic evidence need be included in the debate for most rational people.

In addition, I'm excited about the prospect of Levi Johnston hiring a lawyer, and a high-profile one at that. I'm confident that when Rex Butler said that the Palins might "have a rude awakening" should Levi decide to fight for custody, he was hinting at what most rational people know as the truth about Sarah's faked pregnancy.

And finally, I don't think the mainstream media is as clueless about all this as we think they are. As I stated above, any rational person, when faced with the facts presented on this blog and summarized so succinctly in Doubting Thomas's post, would question Sarah's lies. However, I think that they're staying away from the story until something more concrete comes up. I mean, according to Newsweek magazine, all the mainstream media outlets were asking the McCain campain for "physiological proof" that Sarah gave birth to Trig BY THE AFTERNOON SHE WAS NOMINATED! (Of course, Sarah didn't give proof, and only "quipped, 'What....do I have to show them my stretch marks?'" However, the next day, both the McCain campaigns and the Obama campaign declared families off-limits and that was the end of the mainstream coverage. However, you may be sure that the intelligent people who rushed to ask the questions of Trig's parentage ON THE VERY DAY THAT SARAH PALIN WAS ANNOUNCED AS VP CANDIDATE still know the questions remain. Perhaps like they did on the story of John Edwards's cheating on his cancer-stricken wife, they are just lying low on the story, although everyone knew it was going on.

Finally, you can also be sure that intelligent Republicans like Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal also can surmise the truth. We must remember that ol' Sarah's two months of fame were able to exist only b/c she was plucked out of the relative obscurity of Alaska, gave a total of only three interviews the entire two months, and was kept dressed and made up well, but almost never allowed to speak unscripted. In 2012, she'll have to really fight the other Republican nominees for much longer than two months and she will certainly have to open her mouth and speak without a teleprompter.....OFTEN. She WILL NOT survive that fight with the other intelligent Republicans.

LisanTX said...

Just in case no one has posted yet about Levi getting an attorney, here is a link to the ADN story:
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/761172.html

(since the last post I can see is from yesterday).

Also see Immoral Minority's blog post on the matter at

http://tinyurl.com/cpbz8b

He wants to talk to the attorney and look into starting a fund to help with Levi's legal fees.

dumb said...

To all,

Well, Sadly for your effort, my opinion of the photos and evidence presented is also the majority opinion of the general public and the MSM.

I think you will have a hard time proving these theories to most people.

Daniel Archangel said...

As 'B' points out, I have no proof that Willow is Trig's mother and I don't know what the truth is. There is still a small possibility SP is Trig's mother, although there's no evidence of that, either. The whole point of a faked pregnancy is to eliminate evidence of who the real mother is. If we had direct evidence, that would be the proof.

Willow is a valid candidate, nothing more. The evidence against Bx2 continues to mount, however, both direct and circumstantial. Everything that we can confirm since December of 2007 is consistent with Willow as a possible birth-mother for Trig. That includes Bristol's absence and the rumors, which may have been designed to deflect attention from Willow if Bristol the initial (and more likely to succeed) plan was for Bristol to claim Trig, not SP.

The last reported sighting of Willow is the same as for Bristol: AHA luncheon in Fairbanks on Feb 15. I'm willing to accept that account as accurate, but if you reject it for Bristol you have to reject for Willow, too.

But if Bristol was there, Bx2 is really up against it.
If Trig was full term after that, you have to account for his small size on April 18 AND nobody noticing.
If Trig was born premature before then, you have to account for Trig's whereabouts with FACTS.
If Trig was born premature after that, you still have to account for his whereabouts and Bristol's attendance.
If you go into March, you have to account for Tripp.
If you say Tripp was born later, you have to explain why he looks six weeks old at his roll-out.

And you have to explain why Levi and the Johnstons doesn't know about all this and spill the beans, whether Levi is the father of both or not.

The 'truth' is that circumstances don't eliminate Willow nearly as much as Bristol.

My theory is that the disguised Willow as long as they could then hid her away in Wasilla. The Johnstons either don't know or won't spill the beans and hurt innocent Willow. The Willow theory has NO calendar problems.

The latest photo of Willow is mid-January, and we can't see her mid-section. Talk about evidence of nothing! By my calendar, Willow was due in mid-May, as originally reported. I think that not because SP said so, but because the other confirmable circumstances (wild ride, etc.) and Trig's reported size at birth and on April 18 support it. And I don't also have to explain Tripp.

Fewer lies makes a better ruse. And the best defense against a mostly truthful conclusion is to attack it where it's weakest: where it's wrong. The Palins would know if Bristol is or isn't Trig's mother. If she isn't and neither is SP, they would do exactly what they did. Show that Bristol isn't but not prove SP is. Funny how that works, huh.

Dangerous

Craig said...

KaJo;

In response to your claim that a reporter may be suspciously wording an article due to his doubts about the Trig issue:

The nonprofit group that Sarah gave a speech for, is called S.M.I.L.E.

Here is their mission:

"SMILE on Down Syndrome provides hope for the future to families in southwestern Indiana and beyond who have a family member with Down syndrome through Support, Management, Love and Encourgement."

So, it is a family-inclusive organization, not something specific for mothers of DS children.

Shadowy intrigue seems to get assumed a little too easily, IMO.

Doubting Thomas said...

AlaskaGrown said...
~snip~There is no way you can deduce from that video that Sarah was not 6 months pregnant at that time.

Thats why I say all this photo evidence you present is not damning because when someone who is not so involved and maybe not blinded as much sees a photo you present as evidence, they are not convinced and can see maybe she is pregnant in those photos.

Sorry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have only one thing to say to you.
ANYONE can LOOK pregnant if they are not! BUT NO ONE CAN look NOT pregnant if they are....
Pillows, Fake belly's, balloons, stuffing all can be put on to LOOK pregnant. But you CANNOT TAKE AWAY a Pregnant Belly if you are pregnant! It is that simple.
Amy1 has put together a photo line up of VERIFIED dates that Sarah DOESN'T LOOK pregnant (flat as a board stomach) just weeks before she supposedly delivered Trigg http://i40.tinypic.com/10gy0wh.jpg

eat whine rally said...

Gino just got another blow to her EGO, WAR was resoundingly voted down! I hope she can stay composed during her speech! I believe there are a number of people who will refuse to "see" the truth, but everyone will soon know it, and we can just sit back and say...ITYS!

penny

Amy1 said...

AlaskaGrown: I asked if you would comment on this graphic, and you have not done so yet.

Your comments would help me understand what part of this seems not proof-positive.

Thanks!

LondonBridges said...

One thing to consider is that any picture on the Alaska website cannot be trusted to have the correct date.

Alaska, A.G. or Alaska Grown, I suggest you read all the posts, and all the comments on all the Sarah websites going back to Sarah's ill-advised VP nomination date.

NakedTruth said...

Craig said:

"Shadowy intrigue seems to get assumed a little too easily, IMO."

Wow, Craig, a little *itchy aren't you?! Is this what happens when things start to fall apart for the woman you continue to support so faithfully?

Kajo was just speculating. You are just too serious sometimes for me. Lighten up.

Ivyfree said...

Sarah's praying that the truth will be revealed? I wish I could ask her publicly why she doesn't reveal it then, with medical records. The MSM is too damn polite.

Amy1 said...

By the way, this graphic is very much a joint effort by too many people on this blog to name -- for pls forgive me if your name is not listed below.

The leftmost photo was staring us all in the face for a very long time before Audrey and Jennifer, I think it was, looked more closely, did the lightening and changing of contrast that revealed the photo's full info of the flat stomach.

The middle photo was also found by someone on this blog -- it was found among an unsuspecting someone's flickr vacation photos, and then a bunch of people looked in the ADN and found the until-now unremarkable photos and story of that event, with ADN text+photos that confirmed event, date, clothing -- but did not have a good money shot of SP's midsection.

KaJo provided a sophisticated version of Granny finger-counting re the week count of the preg, and then corrected a bunch of errors I made in typing it up.

Other people corrected other errors when we first started thinking in these terms.

The concept ("How can a 6+ pound baby develop in 5 weeks?") is also a product of this blog -- of the thinking and discussing by MANY contributors.

My part was just putting it onto this jpg and being the pesky one who brings this photo up all the time -- even though we are surely all sick of it.

PLUS: there are a bunch of other photos that make the case equally well. There is actually a large number of these unpregnant or exceedingly suspicious photos (square, smaller, too-small, suddenly larger) to choose from -- all linked to from this site.

I never tire of chuckling over the irony of the rightmost photo, which is by far the most PG-looking photo, which many of us suspect is the result of an especially fine fake strap-on belly. If it were not for this one photo (ooops, there are two photos plus the video), SP could have made a far better case for the tight-abs, no-show, extra-small pregnancy. And we do all know that pregnancies come in all shapes and sizes -- just not in dramatically varying shapes and sizes over the last five weeks before delivery.

And of course, if it weren't for this blog bringing together so many of us who, in isolation, all had those multiple red flags pop up at all the same places -- if not for this gathering place, we would not have had the push to get from point A to point B with this story. We would not have been able "to progress" it, to use a new verb I have learned.

NakedTruth said...

Interesting...I wonder why the Media reports about her family is troubling Sarah so much. Could it because there are secrets about her family that she doesn't want known? Things are really heating up and SP is quite nervous.

Read below: I think this Dittman is with Faux News.


David Dittman, Palin's former pollster, said he doesn't think Palin has mapped out her long-term political strategy.

"I think she's just following her heart, and I don't think it's calculated to shore up the right or build the base or any of that," he said. "I don't think she has a plan or an agenda or a timeline where she has to do certain things by certain times."

He said the media reports about her family surely are "troubling her personally," but that they won't in the long run cause her to withdraw from public life.

B said...

Dangerous said,
"If you say Tripp was born later, you have to explain why he looks six weeks old at his roll-out."

Or you have to explain why he looked younger than six weeks old at his roll-out. And why Bristol looked only two weeks post-partum in Gryphen's Iron Dog photo. Or why Sarah would decide it was better to make everyone think she was trying to hide the fact that Bristol was to be an unwed teen mother when it was really Willow who was pregnant and being hidden. Or why Bristol would sacrifice herself for Willow. Or why Willow would cruelly be forced to babysit TriG at home and on the campaign bus if he was the product of and reminded her of a traumatic rape.

Time, or Rex Butler, will tell.

Anonymous said...

***MODERATION NOTICE******

In compiling information for the blog and Web site, Audrey and her research team spend countless hours combing Internet material, publications, interview audio and checking the tips we receive on a regular basis.

It is the policy of this blog to require commenters claiming some sort of "inside" information to verify it before we allow it on the blog. Anyone can claim to live in Alaska, to know Sarah, or to know people who've seen her. But for all we know they could be sitting in an apartment in Georgia lying through their teeth to make their case or to prop up one that won't stand on its on. And that applies to anyone - regardless of whether their "information" supports our suspicions or not.

Until we have some verification of location and more information to back up claims, posts containing inside info will not be approved.

Anonymous said...

AlaskaGrown,

Would you please contact Audrey at info@palindeception.com regarding your pending comment?

Thank you,

Morgan
PD Moderator

Mary G. said...

Amy1 and B--thank you for your comments regarding the politics of this issue.
I have struggled with why I find Palin's deception so offensive--have I harbored a double standard all these years? But on reflection I realize that Palin's actions and motivations are so sexist and backwards: For example, there is no longer any reason to "hide" pregnant teenagers or to punish and ostracize sexual experimentation, even if it (sex) is done without foresight and judgement. A teenaged, unwed mother--whether she keeps her baby, puts it up for adoption, or decides that a pregnancy would be too traumatic--should not be branded forever for these actions. That is what modern, tolerant laws and attitudes require. If a parent wishes to adopt the baby of their own teenager (and the teen consents), this may be a fine solution--it need not be announced, but it also needn't be concealed.
The whole line about Levi and Bristol getting married to make the pregnancy okay is offensive. Presenting abstinence--however unrealistic--as the best option is foolhardy and hypocritical. So much of this story is about shame, guilt, concealment, lying, sin, etc.--Palin is the one who is implying that teenage sex is some monstrous problem. We know she will never advance the cause of women (or of men or of inclusive families) one bit.
The other reason for supposedly concealing the pregnancy--to provide Trig with the best health care for his life--is also extremely disturbing to me. Why can't Palin say it is now her life's mission to make sure that every Down Syndrome child and every special needs child CAN and SHOULD receive the gold standard of medical care, physical therapy, and support for life, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth and the net worth and insurance policies of his/her parents. Palin merely nods to the status quo by thinking that Trig is better off having her insurance. Many families struggle their entire lives because these services are not guaranteed to their special needs children.

B said...

If you haven't seen Gryphen's photos of post-partum Bristol at this year's Iron Dog, go to theimmoralminority.blogspot.com
and search for post-partum.

Duncan said...

Wow, I can post again.

Google/blogger must have dumped me because I had been using a yahoo.com email. I got a message that yahoo.com was not a valid address.

Anyway, I'm back to celebrate WAR's demise.

Go Alaska!!!

anne s said...

Everything I read says Sarah P. gave birth a month early..
OK.. maybe 6 weeks early since pregnancy due dates can fluctuate by 2 weeks either way

Tonight at the Right's to Life Jesus Revival Rally where she slipped in all her talking points..
She says
She gave birth 8 weeks early??

2 months early? HUH?
Did I miss something?

Anonymous said...

****FROM THE MODERATOR***

Before submitting photos you find to the blog, please double-check the dates (month, day and YEAR) if those things are listed.

Amy1 said...

Mary G: I agree with your every word. SP's "solutions" for her own situation are not ones that are available to others. And she knows it.

We do all make use of the concept that "I'll solve my own problems first and foremost, and let the rest of the world be damned." Because the world's problems are so big; because we feel we cannot make much of a difference; and because our own needs are so pressing.

But if one is a politician who is in the business of making things better for all, it's especially a sensitive matter to take that "me-first" approach.

For example: To adopt because of the DS and SP's better insurance is simply to acknowlege that the insurance world is not a fair place. To game the system rather than helping to fix it shows how helpless even a state governor feels in the clutches of this reality.

It's a variation on the problem of the man who is short and thus can't see the parade because he is in the second row behind tall people. So he finds a big brick and stands on it. HE can see, but now it is harder for those behind him to see. More importantly, this is a solution for only a few. If everyone stood on a brick, including the people in front of him, there would be no advantage to bricks. The better answer, of course, is to let the short people stand in front. No one loses, and no (expensive) bricks are needed. But it takes some organizing, brains, and good will. That's what we elect governors/leaders of various kinds for.

I think this is a parallel re the insurance issue. Clearly, better insurance for all is what is needed, not the ability of privileged people to game the system.

Children having children is the mark of a simple society. One that does not acknowledge that it takes time and effort to educate ourselves to make our best contribution via our life's work. I bet people who value this idea of needing to mature before you parent will always look down upon those who feel it's okay to have babies so young -- unless rich parents and an extended family is guaranteed to make up the difference.

Actually, the implications and complexities of all this make my head hurt -- I just stop and remind myself that the Obamas are way better role models on all this than the Palins.

We are soooooooo lucky McCain/Palin did not win.

leu2500 said...

Anne S - I pulled up the CBJ letter. Dr CBJ re Trigg: One pre-term delivery at 35 weeks gestation.

B said...

anne s said...
She says
She gave birth 8 weeks early??

And she didn't correct herself? What a slip-up! Even CBJ said 35 wks., and Sarah wrote her lines.

Patrick may be right that TriG was in NICU somewhere for a few weeks.

Amy1 said...

Duncan: same thing happened to me. And then when I was back up with a Goog account, I was dumped from this site: YES! because my profile made it look like I was someone else, using my Amy1 name. Amazing how "not picked for the team" that makes one feel, shades of long-ago playground tragedies, even when you understand the circumstances!

Anyway, Morgan caught it and fixed everything right up again.

Just to clarify for the next person this happens to: if you signed up for this blog using a non-Google email (which you could do until some point), you could post just fine for a long time, until one day your log-in does not work, and the explanation messages are too cryptic to understand. And then it dawns on you that this Goog-owned set-up wants you to use the Goog email. Oooooooohhhhhh. Okay. So you switch and all is well again.

Just takes some time to figure it out because some of us give this kind of a problem about 5% of our attention before the next domestic drama calls us away.

questions_and_answers said...

http://tinyurl.com/d7kmnx

I've updated a little more- I made an updated timeline with more pictures, as well as a timeline with just the girls' faces. All the dates on the pictures (minus the "green shirt" picture) are from this site or from the captions on Alaska Stock. I'm still one of those people who, for various reasons, isn't 100% sure whether that picture was taken in 2006 or 2007. I was wondering, however, if anyone has a high quality version of it. As you can see from my photostream and the timelines, the quality of the picture I have isn't the best. I would like to find a better version of it because I have an idea of how it might be possible to definitively prove (not just "think") that it was taken at a given time. Like I said before, my flickr 'work' was because I hadn't seen anyone put the pictures together before, and I figured that since I had made it, I'd share.

KaJo said...

A big heads-up to your comment, anne s @ 7:58 PM...

I also noted antiAnti (you? or someone else) at Mudflats saying near the same thing: "Eight (8) weeks premature? Are you sure she said 8? Pretty hard to believe that a 6lb something baby was 8 weeks early…. at full term he would have been a great big OUCH."

KaJo said...

I have a fire extinguisher here, ready to put out any fires (that I might have added to)!!

Revisiting your comment at 7:58 PM , anne s:

I just listened to the YouTube video broadcast of the pertinent part of SP's speech where she talks about how premature Trig was -- and she definitely says 5 weeks (FIVE), not 8.

Postergirl said...

Anne S. or someone else... is there a YouTube clip of the speech she gave at the right-to-life thing? I want to hear where she says she gave birth 8 weeks early! That right there would be a bizarre thing to say. It's not like you could have forgotten how early or late you were when you gave birth... If someone knows where there's a clip and at what time she says that, please post!

(I'm an extremely infrequent poster but I log on at least once a day if not more).

Bretta said...

Re: DNA testing
I had asked Audrey about this by email; On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Bretta wrote:

Do you imagine that during the months on the campaign trail that hair, saliva or other biological matter may have been collected from the persons of interest?
It may have been done and someone already knows the truth.

I don't really care if she birthed or adopted Trig; the weird stories just make me desire unequivocal evidence.

Audrey's response:
It's possible, but if that is true I do not know about it.

Over the last months I have received numerous suggestions that "someone" do things like steal diapers etc. I have found these suggestions pretty inappropriate. The only way DNA would ever be accepted is if the Palin family did it openly through a respected lab, etc, and that is unlikely to happen. Any DNA results acquired in any clandestine way would never be accepted anyway.
Audrey


IMHO a government operative has already accomplished the DNA testing for leverage. Maybe McCain knows a different story about TriG, which may add to his reasons not to endorse her now.

Bretta said...

Dangerous said:
"""...why Levi and the Johnstons don't know about all this and spill the beans...
...The 'truth' is that circumstances don't eliminate Willow nearly as much as Bristol. My theory is that the disguised Willow as long as they could then hid her away in Wasilla."""

Alaska is such a small town that I don't understand why no one spills, either, because it sure seems as if there is fire under all that smoke.

Of course, SP's vindictive reputation is a good restrictor.

When do you think they 'hid' Willow?

I thought she was living in Juneau with her mother and Piper and attending school. I thought Bristol was the one missing in action during the time in question?

It was Bristol the rumors swirled about... no one has said rumors like that about Willow - unless I missed something.

I want to understand your premise that Trig may have been birthed by Willow but I am having trouble tracking your points.

Am I too bogged in the anecdotes putting Bristol forth as the most logical mother?

NakedTruth said...

I have not heard SP's speech from the Pro-Life event last night but I saw on the internet this AM that she admitted that she considered aborting Trig.

I immediately thought to myself, yes she did consider getting Bristol an abortion that's why she and Bristol took that trip to New York in Oct. 2008. Keep in mind also that according to Todd Palin, he was not told about the pregnancy until Oct. 2008 as well. IMO they waited to tell Todd after they decided against the abortion. Wow!

NakedTruth said...

Ooops, the New York trip and Todd finding out about the pregnancy happened in 2007 not 2008. My previous post contains the wrong year.

Patrick said...

Naked Truth 6:54

Yes, I think that this scenario might be true.

It's also very well possible IMO that the abortion didn't happen because it turned out that Bristol was already too far along (either lied to SP or Bristol wasn't certain about the stage of the pregnancy herself).

Patrick (PD research)

B said...

questions_and_answers said...
I'm still one of those people who, for various reasons, isn't 100% sure whether that picture was taken in 2006 or 2007.***

Q&A, why reopen Audrey's dating of the green sweater picture?

If it is 2007, it is somewhat consistent with camo dress, in that she has a rounded belly. But the only photo of value would be one after camo dress showing she had a flat belly.

If 2006, it suggests Bristol's belly was always rounded. That would detract somewhat from the argument that camo dress shows a pregnant belly. But camo dress is at best consistent with, not proof of, pregnancy anyway.

What am I missing? I understand if you just want details correct, but I can't understand if you think it is relevant to TriG's parentage.

B said...

Mary G. Naked Truth, Patrick, etc.:

Interesting comment at Gryphen's blog. Yet another amnio story. Was she in NYC with Bristol?

Anonymous said...
OK, did I read correctly that in the speech she says that she was out of Alaska when she found out about the Downs and even briefly considered an abortion? Yet in Trailblazer, it says Todd was out of town, but she drove over to CBJ to get information? So was CBJ also out of Alaska, or was that one long drive?
6:52 AM

NakedTruth said...

O.k. this is starting to piss me off even more. I am looking at the "GOP Homecoming Queen", Elizabeth Hasselbeck, on the View this morning and she is HUGE. I think this is her 3rd child and her due date is not until August so she is about 6 months pregnant.

Now you can't tell me that AlaskaGrown can say that SP appears 6 months pregnant in those photos that Amy1 asked him to review.

It's just not possible for a tiny woman like SP to not show at all at 6-7 months on her 5th pregnancy at 44 years old.

SP is not the mother of Trig and she will be ruined when the truth comes out.

NakedTruth said...

Oh Papa Heath is nervous now. He is backing down on his comment to US Magazine.

Read below:

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/04/exclusive-interview-sarah-palin’s-father-says-he-didn’t-attack-levi

Unknown said...

Naked Truth & Patrick (~7AM, 4/17): YES - this scenario really makes a lot of sense, fits well with the photographic evidence of Bristol in fall 2007 pics, as well as the timeline for a Feb. birth of Trig.

ProChoiceGrandma said...

KaJo, or anyone else, I cannot find Part 5 of Sarah’s speech at the Vandenburg Right to Life speech. Can you give us a link to where you saw this? Progressive Alaska has parts 1, 2 3, 4, 6 & 7, but says Part 5 is not yet available.

Daniel Archangel said...

Bretta asked

When do you think they 'hid' Willow?

I thought she was living in Juneau with her mother and Piper and attending school. I thought Bristol was the one missing in action during the time in question?

It was Bristol the rumors swirled about... no one has said rumors like that about Willow - unless I missed something.
I don't recall seeing any posts from you prior to this one, so I'll reiterate some of the background. (Others familiar with the theory can skip this.)

You *thought* Willow was living in Juneau and going to school. The first part is probably right (but not indepedently confirmed), but there's no direct evidence that Willow attended school. From Willow's travel records, we know that for 5 of the eight weeks between Feb 15 and April 18 (Trig's official birth date), Willow was not in school in Juneau. Again, according to travel records, Willow went one-way from Juneau to Wasilla on March 28. She didn't fly anywhere per travel docs again until June. It's pretty convenient that she happened to be in Wasilla at just the time the Trig was supposedly born there (or rather nearby Palmer).

Willow might have attended school in Juneau for those three weeks, and maybe she attended school in Wasilla after she went there. But it's all maybe's and might haves. There's no confirmed explanation yet for the sudden transfer (if there was one) and no confirmation of actual school attendance. There's only a second-hand listing of 'honor roll' in the newspaper. That's also inconclusive of school attendance.

There's also no picture of Willow after mid-January 2008, and those don't have any view of her mid-section. With a due date of mid-May, she may not have shown what could not be disguised until about 7 months.

The point is that, like Bristol, Willow doesn't have a confirmed alibi and there's no direct evidence to exclude her. That's why I insist she is still a candidate to be Trig's mother, as all the circumstantial evidence implicate her as much as Bristol.

Dangerous

eat whine rally said...

Gryphen at The Immoral Minority has all seven parts of SP's speech in Indiana yesterday.

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/

NO, IT IS NOT EASY TO WATCH, but you know that every time she opens her mouth some more lies tumble out, so it's worth it!

Her comments support her claim that she gave birth to Trig, not just, "I am is his mother." Good, more dirt for the top of her coffin.

You would think that the right to life community is non-wavering in their belief, and if "one of their own" even considered having an abortion, or had a potentially harmful amniocenteses, they would be banished. I guess they are now forgiving of those that would openly struggle with the decision, but not with those who decide, well nobody will know. But, I think that is just surface kerfuffle. I always figured if either of the Bush twins found themselves in Bristols's position we would never had heard about it.
Do as we saw, not as we do.

What do we make of her finding out that she was pregnant when she and Todd were out of town at some oil and gas meeting? Does that jive with our information? I think "Trailblazer" said something different.

BTW, Thank you Dangerous for responding to "those who still believe in SP," so eloquently! I just don't have the willpower to be so restrained these days. :)

Elizabeth said...

I'm sure if you've seen this yet, but I wanted to send you a link to the article just in case. http://news.aol.com/article/sarah-palin-speech-in-indiana/432693?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fsarah-palin-speech-in-indiana%2F432693

Sarah is quoted here from her speech this week in Indiana, and talks about her pregnancy with Trig. "She was on a trip out of state at the time, she said, and "just for a fleeting moment I thought, 'No one knows me here; no one would ever know.' ... My amniocentesis came back and then I understood why some people would think they could change their circumstances, just take care of it. Todd didn't even know" the results of the prenatal testing yet, so "no one would know."

Two points on this statement, and please correct me if I'm wrong. First, she states that she was out of the state when she found out about the amnio results. Hasn't she stated in other interviews that she was in her office in Alaksa? Second, amnios are usually done around 14-16 weeks, I'm not sure how far along hers was done, but what kind of relationship does she have with Todd where she is 3 months pregnant (or more) and he doesn't know she's pregnant???

Amy1 said...

Re DNA testing: it is my understanding that there are two categories of DNA testing that might interest us: one is for personal knowledge, the other is for legal proof.

The difference between the two is the protection and documentation of the chain of custody.

In other words, a person like Levi could do a paternity test for his own knowledge by online ordering a kit for under $100, taking a sample of his own DNA by swabbing the inside of his cheek with a special Q-tip. Ditto for the baby. Simple, nonivasive. He mails the kit and shortly thereafter gets an answer that is 99% accurate. No one needs to know he did it, and he does not need to tell anyone the results of the test.

To do the test so the results can be used in court, there needs to be documented proof of the identity of each person tested, eyewitnesses to the swabbing of the cheek, and documented precautions that nothing gets mixed up either deliberately or by accident. So that of course costs more. I'm sure Rex Stout knows everything there is to know on this subject.

But if a person just wanted to KNOW (as I would) the test could be done privately; it could always be done again in the legalistic, chain-of-custody way if one wanted to use the info in some legal way.

The mother's DNA is not needed UNLESS there is some suspicion about some relative of the mother's being a paternity candidate.

And the latter would matter only if one were trying to determine who the father is, rather than trying to determine only "is it me?" as someone in Levi's position might do.

Seems to me it could be done simply and cheaply, without the knowledge of the mother, if all one wanted to know was "is it me?" and if one was not interested in using the results of this particular test for legal purposes. (Although one could crtainly do another test later for use in legal actions.)

I am not an expert, so I'd appreciate a confrm/deny from anyone who knows more.

Sunshine1970 said...

Well, here's a new one...Miss Sarah said she had the though to abort Trig for just a fleeting moment:
Wait. What?!1st paragraph:

In her first out-of-state political appearance since last fall’s presidential election, former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin confided to 3,000 at a right-to-life event here that she had “just for a fleeting moment” contemplated seeking an abortion after learning she was pregnant with her son Trig, who will turn 1 on Saturday.

Unknown said...

I just have one question that just occurred to me (haven't been able to read all posts yet :/) :
Remember the picture of Levi holding a tiny, tiny little Trig? Has anyone compared THAT size of Trig to the size he was when he was produced by GINO in April? If my memory serves correctly, he was quite a bit older/larger at that time than in the pic where Levi is holding him in the same chair like Mercede...

ProChoiceGrandma said...

So, finally, Part 5 of the speech is available at theimmoralminority.blogspot.com http://tiny.cc/7giXw

When did Sarah go “out of state at an oil and gas conference” when she first learned she was “pregnant” with Trig? Perhaps that would be when Sarah and Bristol traveled to New York City on October 7-11, 2007 for a 5 day 4 night stay in a luxury hotel. Sarah attended a five-hour conference at Newsweek’s Third Annual Women and Leadership Conference. What did Bristol and Sarah do for the other 4 days, hmmm? Sarah obviously never purchased any maternity clothes for herself. The only maternity dress Sarah ever wore was that cheap black rag in the April 13, 2008 picture taken by Gusty, which was never seen until 8-31-08 (to prove that at least ONE time Sarah looked very pregnant, even though there are NO other pictures, even at the April 16, 2008 conference in Texas). If an amniocentesis was done, Bristol would have been approximately 18-20 weeks during that NYC trip, which would have been a more appropriate time to perform the risky amniocentesis.

With all of Sarah’s lies about her fake pregnancy with Trig, I think she may actually be telling us one truthful factor - that Trig was born at 35 weeks gestation. If Trig was actually born premature at 35 weeks gestation, his birth was between 1-19-08 and 2-2-08.

Lilybart said...

I think she lied when she said she considered aborting. She embellished to make her story even better.

She may have considered aborting Bristol's baby though!!

Unknown said...

Thanks to whoever put together the faces of the palin kids (sorry - forgot who it was :/), but I just checked Pipers faces through the ages (http://tinyurl.com/crpsc5), and in the one with the bow (9/07), she shows to have lost a bottom tooth. In the one afterwards - the orange one - (10/07?10/06?), she has no such space.
So, I guess that pic *must be* 10/06, because I don't think a tooth can come in that quickly (or does it?)...

jwc said...

The news this morning is that Palin has just "confessed," to a pro-life crowd who loves her for it, that she fleetingly considered abortion upon learning she was pregnant with a Downs baby.

So she's going all or nothing with her fake pregnancy story. At this point, when the truth ultimately comes out, she'll have forfeited the chance to be seen as sympathetic (for protecting her daughter, assuming that's the story) and will have crossed the line into looney.

This is political suicide.
I hope.

Everspring said...

Long-time reader here. I believe SP said in her Right to Life speech that she learned of her pregnancy while at an out-of-state oil & gas conference. I don't know where to find her 2007 official calendar or expenses, but I think there was a June 12, 2007 conference in DC - did she attend this? Were there any other out-of-state conferences that she attended in June or July? If she learned on June 12th, that would mean the beginning of the pregnancy was in May 2007 and therefore a Feb 15 2008 could be entirely possible which would conclude that SP did not give birth to Trig. Can someone post her 2007 calendar timeline and/or travel details?

Truthseeker2 said...

OMG, I just watched the whole of SP's speech in Indiana (on Immoral Minority), and I have to say that this was a virtuoso performance by Sarah that scared the bejeezus out of me. She was articulate in a folksy way, she wove together a lot of conservative themes (albeit with a little too much AK travelog), she was occasionally funny, she poked fun at her own failings (Couric interview, wardrobe-gate) and she was believably emotional when speaking about Trig. I am not at all surprised that the audience was wrapped around her little finger, and it was a reminder that she is still a very powerful force to be reckoned with. She also very blatantly used Trig for her political purposes, much more than I have ever seen her do before. I did find it interesting that she never said she gave birth to Trig, and that she juxtaposed comments about how she now understood unwed teenage mothers and adoptive parents. But those who think that Sarah is finished politically are mistaken. Revealing the lie to the American people is all the more important, because she needs to be stopped.

anne s said...

sorry my clogged ears i got a video to work she said FIVE not 8 weeks early ..sorry :(

cooky said...

Despite all that SP had to say last night - all the personal references - still no definitive statement.
Just a collection of circumstantial pregnancy/birth stories.

Watching Sarah Palin speak (via youtube) in Indiana, I felt such great sadness for her. I can't help but sense something dark and heavy there, something she sees as her duty to carry and cover up with a lot of superficial smiles an you betchas. Yet last night she went so far in discussing that which is 'personal', further than she had to go. Maybe that's why she's good 'on stage' and can put it over for an audience, but struggles in more intimate settings.


Although she brought all this down on herself, it must be so difficult for her and for her family. I'm sorry for them and after watching her stumble around for words at that podium last night, I can't wish them anything but peace.

Unknown said...

Question on the dates that Palin gave in her speech.
She said that a month after Trig was born that Bristol told her that she was pregnant. Ok..so that would be mid May since Trig was born mid April. Assuming that Bristol realized in May that her period wasn't happening, that puts a full term 9 month pregnancy with a due date in Mid January...yet Levi and others said that her due date was "around December 18th", THAT would have been a month earlier than her due date going by Palin's dates she offered up in her speech.
Then we have Bristol supposedly delivering Dec 27/28. Still 2 weeks early. So while we were all going "huh, the reported due date was Dec 18th so she is 10 days late??"....using the dates Palin gave us, she was 2 weeks early...was it ever reported initially that Bristol's baby was 2 weeks premature/early??
Another question, when Palin finally admitted that Bristol was pregnant, was it reported as 5 or 5 1/2 months (that number sticks in my head) or did they say 4.5 months which would be the case using the dates in Sarah's speech?
I can't help but think the more Palin retells her Tripp/trig stories, she is going to unknowingly give us the smoking gun (or MORE smoking guns, I should say)

Truthseeker2 said...

To uu, in the GVS interview Bristol said that she told Sarah that she was pregnant in the summer, after school was out. So I wouldn't put too much credence in Sarah's timetable. She obviously has a vested interest in making people believe that Bristol was pregnant earlier.

I think that in the long run, Sarah's speech yesterday is going to prove to be the real nail in her political coffin, because it will prove not only that she lied, but that she did it for political gain to play to the right-to-life base, not to protect Bristol. Up til now, she could have claimed that she did it to protect her daughter (however illogical that is); but now she cannot make that claim any more. It was, and is, all about Sarah, and Bristol is just collateral damage.

B said...

UU said, "when Palin finally admitted that Bristol was pregnant, was it repo rted as 5 or 5 1/2 months (that number sticks in my head) or did they say 4.5 months which would be the case using the dates in Sarah's speech?"

I believe they said "about five months," so if Bristol told her around May 18, she must have held off testing/telling for a couple of weeks after the missed period to make that work. That's assuming Sarah was telling the truth about TriG's birthday and TriPP's pregnancy -- a big leap.

Mary G. said...

I have not yet listened to Palin's right-to-life speech, but I gather she suggested that for one fleeting moment she considered abortion (she was out of state, somewhere where they have those infamous drive-thru abortion kiosks! Right? In many sinful, pro-choice cities, anyone can just walk in and get an abortion!). Right. The harder and rockier the path to virtue, the more saintly the sinner who is tested.... that's a tale as old as the Old Testament, the New Testament ("Father let this cup pass...."), and every other bible thumping preacher. So Palin makes this shocking admission merely to gain points in martyrdom and humanity.
I will probably have to listen to some of it--yes, I have noticed the discrepancies with her testing. And it seems that at one point she is saying, when she found out she was pregnant--so, given the stated duedate of May 18, she would have found out perhaps in late September--when she was at an IOGCC meeting in New Orleans (9/22/2007-2/24/2007)--there's probably one abortion provider in that entire state! In the Lorenzo Benet Trailblazer book, it says that Palin got the phone call with the test results on Dec. 4, 2007--Palin was in Anchorage that day--Todd was "out" 12/5-12/9 (why didn't she tell him on the 4th? Maybe she forgot to, getting ready for that Vogue shoot on the 12th.)
I'll be checking some dates....

MES said...

Good catch, uu at 5:30.

The campaign press release on September 1 (fittingly, Labor Day!) said that Bristol was "about five months pregnant." At the time, the language struck me as interestingly vague!

sg said...

A.B. Culvahouse talks about his role as chief VP candidate vetter for Sen. McCain:

http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?ProgramId=HP-A-41654

Most of the speech is about his role in the Reagan administration. The VP vetting discussion starts about 33:00 into the 44:00 speech.

Key points:

- 26 names on long list. They were "blind"--meaning the candidates didn't know they were being considered.

- "handful" of names on short list, who went through interviews and submitted written information.

- 74-item written questionnaire

- SP "told everything." Everything except the disclosure of Bristol's pregnancy was on the written response. When SP submitted her written response, she told Culvahouse that there was one issue that she would discuss in her interview: Bristol's pregnancy.

- Culvahouse suggested that the knowledge of Bristol's pregnancy was kept very closely--presumably McCain and few if any others. Some key campaign staffers didn't know about it, so they were blind-sided when the media inquiries came it. [Question: didn't the staffers have their own questions, after seeing the pretty obviously pregnant Bristol at the Dayton event?]

- Culvahouse's recommendation to McCain re SP: "high risk, high reward." McCain's response: "You shouldn't have told me that: I've been a risk-taker all my life!"

sg said...

penny:

You said:

"You would think that the right to life community is non-wavering in their belief, and if "one of their own" even considered having an abortion, or had a potentially harmful amniocenteses, they would be banished. I guess they are now forgiving of those that would openly struggle with the decision, but not with those who decide, well nobody will know."

Christian theology distinguishes between the temptation and the sin. (If you're familiar with the New Testament, you would know that even Jesus was tempted.) To Christians, considering an abortion is merely temptation. But to Christians, having an abortion is sin. Huge difference. That explains the standing ovations she received in Indiana.

B said...

Naked Truth, thanks for that link to Chuck's backtracking on Levi. I like this part:

But now Heath, in an exclusive interview with RadarOnline.com, says he never made those comments . . . "I encouraged him to go back to school and get his GED.”

To "go back" to school Levi needed to have left it first. Grandpa is confirming that Levi's a drop out.

Amy1 said...

Here's the C-SPAN version of her speech.

Unknown said...

From the Huffington Post re whether Palin revealed to McCain that Bristol was pregnant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/mccain-vetter-palin-told_n_188394.html

"He [McCain's lawyer A.B. Culvahouse - a bigwig with the powerhouse law firm O’Melveny & Myers] insisted that on her submitted written questionnaire, Palin told the vetting staff about 'everything except the pregnancy' of her daughter. That revelation came in a conversation soon after the end of her interview. 'So we knew everything going in,' said Culvahouse.

He stated that some McCain staffers seemed caught off-guard for the pregnancy story because medical confidentiality had prohibited them from being briefed. 'Some of the members of the campaign staff who thought they should have known about these issues, who were finding themselves answering questions about these issues, had not been briefed. So that left the impression that those had been withheld,' he said."

WTF - "medical confidentiality" prevented McCain from telling his staff that Bristol was pregnant???

What total BS, especially coming from a bigwig lawyer like Mr. Culvahouse.

HIPAA - the federal law that deals with medical privacy -- applies only to health care providers and health care plans (and those who work for them). Last I heard, McCain and his team were not health care providers or a health care plan and therefore "medical confidentiality" laws did not prevent them from revealing to campaign staffers (or anyone else) that Bristol was pregnant.

Mr. Culvahouse says that Palin would have been a great vice president and he told John McCain that Palin would be ready from day one. And he still believes that.

And by the way, Mr. Culvahouse is chairman of the international law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, with 1,000 lawyers and, according to its PR material, a committment to "Unflinching integrity and ethics."

Unknown said...

Well, I don't think we will be hearing from Levi anytime soon.

Great granddaddy Chuck Heath tells US magazine that Levi is a deadbeat dad.

http://www.usmagazine.com/news/sarah-palins-father-wishes-levi-johnston-would-buy-some-diapers-2009154

Levi lawyers up and his lawyer releases a statement that great granddaddy Health was "trying to make the young man look like a deadbeat father, and, you know, they may have a rude awakening one day if he tries to get custody."

http://palingates.blogspot.com/2009/04/rex-butler-levi-johnstons-attorney.html

"Rude Awakening" - I love it. A subtle way of saying "let Levi have his custody rights or you might be real surprised what comes out of his mouth about Trigg."

And then, the next thing you know, Chucky saying it's all a big mistake, he was misquoted and Levi is wonderful.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/04/exclusive-interview-sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-father-says-he-didn%E2%80%99t-attack-levi

Methinks threat was received and taken and now Levi will be getting his custody rights.

I don't think Levi has any interest in bringing Sarah down. Hell, he told the CBS Morning show that he would vote for her in 2012. Which makes sense for a lot of reasons, including that he is apparently a gun toting hunting machine like his almost mother-in-law. Nah, I think he just wants to see his son (or sons) and be able to take 'em hunting. Who knows maybe he's a creationist like Sarah and wants to teach them about dinosaurs and humans walking the earth together.

But I just don't think Levi has any interest in bringing Sarah down, and if his parental rights are respected, we won't be hearing from him.

NakedTruth said...

Doberman said:

"But I just don't think Levi has any interest in bringing Sarah down, and if his parental rights are respected, we won't be hearing from him."

I totally agree. Levi loves his sons (Trig and Tripp) and just wants full parental rights. I think he and Bristol are both appreciative of SP for taking Trigg. Neither one probably felt that they could handle a special needs child. I do feel that there is some guilt there with Levi and this is why he chose to volunteer with the Special Needs Hockey program.

As long as the Palins embrace his rights, we won't hear a thing from Levi. Now Sherry and Mercede, on the other hand, could possibly slip up. Let's hope so.

Anonymous said...

So is this Classic ConArtist-Liar Behavior that when the lies start caving, you invent new, bigger ones-- like more and more bandaids even though the first one's coming undone?

The I-Considered-Abortion-Story is worse than Spin. It capitalizes on one of the most basic Christian tenets: We're All Sinners, and Jesus Loves Best the Sinners Who Know They Are. This is why I consider this woman the Anti-Christ.

eat whine rally said...

Thanks for the Christian refresher sg. You caught me, it's been over forty years since I was reading the New Testament in Sunday school. My family stopped going once the minister was found to be having an affair with a parishioner.

SP's comments bother me on so many levels, but the bottom line is, she made a choice yet she wants to deny others the same right.

SP stated some questionable dates in her speech, which combined with all of her recent blunders, seem to have reignited the Trig parentage conversation. Maybe the msm will finally decide this is worthy of a closer look.

penny

Shelby said...

I too agree Levi is not intent on bring the Palin's down. I don't think we will see any earth-shaking revelations from the Levi side. To him this is a family dispute that involves him being involved with the family, not a mission to destory the family that is raising his son(s).

But I found the Indiana speech most interesting for the simple fact that Palin is putting Trig front and center in her recently launched assault on the lower 48.

As a 100% believer that Trig is not Palin's biological son I find her speech to be not only shocking but deeply disturbing.

She truly does believe she is invincible and that her half-ass lies and deceptions will never be revealed.

I would counter that when her deception is revealed she will have painted herself into an even tighter corner with lies and inconsistencies that she will never be able to recover from.

The time for Palin coming clean about the circumstances surrounding the birth of Trig Palin is long gone. Trig has turned out to be just about her only political asset as she certainly can't point to leadership and competence any longer.

I also think that contemplating abotion and not telling Todd is not what a married mother of 42 does when she finds out she is pregnant. It is what a mother of of a 16 year old does when she finds out her 16 year old is pregnant.

I have no doubt that abortion was contemplated - for Bristol. I also don't doubt that Todd wasn't told for a while as alternatives were considered.

midnightcajun said...

I managed to listen to most of Sarah's R2L speech. She's starting to repeat herself--putting down the blackberry and picking up the breastpump, etc, although this time it was Truth barging through the door. (We wish.)

What annoyed me the most was that she had the unmitigated gall to say over and over that because she supposedly considered abortion (because she was through with the diaper stage and it would give her critics more to gripe about?!), she has learned about the other side of the issue and "understands" how a young teenager might be tempted to have an abortion. Right. This married woman with built-in babysitters, a $250,000 a year job, health insurance, and $7 million in investments (where DID that come from??) understands how a 16 year old kid with none of the above feels? What a poser.

Oh, and someone needs to tell her it's INalienable rights, not UNalienable rights. And that the modern name for the Cradle of Civilization we bombed back into the stone age is not pronounced I-rack. (As you can see, I shouldn't have watched it--she always makes me grumpy.)

Another thing, what's with her claiming she was out of town when her doctor told her she was pregnant? I always found out while I was still sitting in my doctors office, and that was decades ago--including once in a third world country. Surely they're not still using 1940s technology up there in the Last Frontier? And Mary G, thanks for the info about the IOGCC meeting in New Orleans (9/22/2007-2/24/2007) , which nails down some more of her (false) information. Although I must point out that as the den of sin and inequity that we are, there are definitely abortion providers here--one of the reasons the Christian Dominionists were going around saying Katrina was a punishment from God.

SillyRabbit said...

Last night (Friday),Bill Maher had a Tripp talking baby doll on his show, the kind with a string that you pull to hear different phrases. One of the things lil' Tripp said was, "So that OTHER baby is my UNCLE, right?" It got a big laugh. Yep, everybody in the media knows the truth already. And it's oozing out. Like mud.

Burgh said...

*** Everspring said...
Long-time reader here. I believe SP said in her Right to Life speech that she learned of her pregnancy while at an out-of-state oil & gas conference. I don't know where to find her 2007 official calendar or expenses, but I think there was a June 12, 2007 conference in DC - did she attend this? Were there any other out-of-state conferences that she attended in June or July? If she learned on June 12th, that would mean the beginning of the pregnancy was in May 2007 and therefore a Feb 15 2008 could be entirely possible which would conclude that SP did not give birth to Trig. Can someone post her 2007 calendar timeline and/or travel details?***

Adding to this question: Why would she learn of her pregnancy when she was out of town? You think you're pregnant; you take a test (home or doctor's office); you know immediately. There would be no reason for her to be tested while on a business trip.
Actually, there's one reason I can think of: She wanted to test privately away from the rest of the family, because abortion was an option. Wow, abortion is an option in her family, but not for a rape victim... but I digress. The test would of course be for BP. This would fit with her taking BP on a business trip with her, confronting BP with an "I know you're pregnant; pee on the stick" moment, and a subsequent "exploration of options," so to speak.
Timing of such a moment would jibe nicely with her trip to NYC, early October 2007. BP would certainly be starting to show signs (if not a tummy, at least some moodiness or behavioral changes) by then, and, well, you know liberal NYC, a clinic on every corner. Maybe BP breaks into a chorus of "Mama (sic) don't preach... I'm keeping my baby;" maybe they find out she's far enough along (past the first trimester) that a clinic won't do and she'll have to go to a hospital, give a name for insurance or give a credit card and name to pay privately. In another couple of months, the baggy sweatshirts can't hide the truth, and BP goes to live with her aunt.

Lynn said...

I just have to reply to the comment by sg, I agree with your analysis about temptation and sin. But you lost me with the flat out statement that "to Christians, having an abortion is sin".

Conservative, fundamentalist Christians do not speak for all Christians and I'm so fed up with that idea. I'm tired of cringing and feeling embarassed whenever I hear the term Christian. I'm a Christian, great-granddaughter of a minister, niece of a minister and I attend church regularly and I do not see abortion the way Sarah and her base see it. So please use the qualifier of fundamentalist in front of Christian in a statement like that. End of rant!

Everspring said...

In the speech, SP said: 1) learned at 13 weeks along that he would be born with Down Syndrome; 2) I'd found out that I was pregnant while out of state at an oil & gas conference and this is when she had thoughts of aborting just for a fleeting moment 3) then when she found out the results of the amniocentesis she apparently had more fleeting moments - Todd didn't know the results - results of the amnio, not the pregnancy?

So, she had thoughts of aborting when she first learned of her pregnancy and later after learning of the results.

If you throw out all the prior timeline comments which were meant to throw everyone off the track of her daughter being pregnant with Trig and focus on her timeline reference in the speech I think it could be telling that SP did not give birth.

1) Learned of pregnancy at out-of-state oil & gas meeting (June 12, 2007?? any other in June or July?). If you learned of it then, you had to pregnant perhaps mid-to late-May 2007.
2) Makes for a mid-Feb 2008 birth (when Bristol was in hiding).
3) Not sure what to believe about finding out the results of the amnio at 13 weeks along (14 - 18 weeks is considered safe) - why would you have that done at a time when it is not considered safe as this procedure may abort the child?? The trip in October to NY with Bristol they may have learned that it was too late to do anything about the pregnancy.

Burgh said...

*** uu said...
Question on the dates that Palin gave in her speech.
She said that a month after Trig was born that Bristol told her that she was pregnant. Ok..so that would be mid May since Trig was born mid April. Assuming that Bristol realized in May that her period wasn't happening, that puts a full term 9 month pregnancy with a due date in Mid January...yet Levi and others said that her due date was "around December 18th", THAT would have been a month earlier than her due date going by Palin's dates she offered up in her speech.
Then we have Bristol supposedly delivering Dec 27/28. Still 2 weeks early. So while we were all going "huh, the reported due date was Dec 18th so she is 10 days late??"....using the dates Palin gave us, she was 2 weeks early...was it ever reported initially that Bristol's baby was 2 weeks premature/early??***

First, hello and welcome to all of the new names I'm seeing!
To your last question, using the Esquire article as evidence, no, Tripp was not early. He was, if anything, late (the article is available at esquire.com under features). Yet another screwup by the gang that couldn't shoot (their mouths off) straight. Diana, you should really offer your calendar to the P family and give them a chance to review it before they tell another lie! :)

wv: jousi... the story keeps getting more jousi!

Anonymous said...

***MODERATOR NOTE***

Commenter Lynne makes a very good point about generalization. We have, I'm sure, more than a few readers who identify themselves as Christian but who don't agree with Palin or her ilk's theocratic world view.

So let's be careful when we generalize, folks. I apologize to Lynne and anyone else who may have been offended by remarks here implying that all Christians agree with Palin.

To the commenters here, I'd respectfully ask you to PLEASE refrain from painting all Christians with the same brush. In your remarks, it's fine to say "certain Christians" or " extreme fundamentalists," when referring to those who agree with Palin's world view. But further remarks lumping all Christians together will not be approved.

So folks, be mindful of this in your remarks. I know plenty of Christians who are completely turned off by Palin. Lynne's note to the group here - and her sensibilities - should be heeded.

Daniel Archangel said...

As some posters have picked up, I can't stress how important anything SP says about Trig's gestation period is critically important. There's a reason that criminal defendants must be specifically warned that anything they say may be used against them in court. Even inadvertent comments that create inconsistencies may be used to impeach them and argued to any jury.

These comments at the anti-abortion forum appear to be her first on the subject since her exchange with Pat Dougherty of ADN. Unlike that exchange, when she betrayed nothing of substance, her statement at the conference -- probably designed to enhance her speech (true or not) -- provide concrete details against which her entire story must gibe.

Hence, the "oil & gas conference" reference should be testable based on her travel schedule. I haven't listened to the speech myself, so if people are only assuming that part and it was from June 12 to make that statement coincide with a pet theory, it doesn't really help.

First, let's determine conclusively all the dates she could have meant and see if any coincide with out-of-state travel anywhere near a time she might have first learned she was pregnant that would match the mid-May due date ascribed to her earlier statements and other matters on the record. These days, most women learn they were pregnant from a stick, not their doctor, and would do so two weeks late on their cycle, although with SP's age we should consider a four week interval.

If there's no SP out-of-state travel from mid-October to mid-November, then her statement is easily impeached.

But that doesn't settle things. All we may have caught her in was a lie to suit the audience. Perhaps she just learned of her "pregnancy" at home and made up the part about being out-of-town. If it wasn't in time with the "oil & gas conference", she could just claim faulty memory and a busy schedule. (I wouldn't buy it, but it does provide plausible deniability.)

The negative step is jumping to conclusions that SP told the truth about the actual timing and circumstances when she learned of whoever's pregnancy with Trig, and that she truthfully considered abortion. She could be lying about any and all of it.

The positive step would be using unequivocal impeachment of her statement against her to challenge the truthfulness of her entire account. Just as the Trig-for-Tripp Johnston photo, we can make hay on impeaching this politically charged statement to aid our credibility and journalist chops.

That credibility is shattered, however, if many take SP's statement as proof of an otherwise unsupported theory. Simply put, a lie is never proof of anything except for the teller's lack of truthfulness.

Holders of the sacred SP travel itineraries: Go forth and investigate.

Dangerous

BG said...

Shelby said:

I also think that contemplating abortion and not telling Todd is not what a married mother of 42 does when she finds out she is pregnant. It is what a mother of of a 16 year old does when she finds out her 16 year old is pregnant.

Well said!

Silvergirl said...

Sarah admitting that she considered aborting Trig would be a turn off for a lot of her followers, at least it should be.

I wonder how she figures she can even keep her facts straight. I think after a while people will stop listening, but then again, people love gossip, and Sarah certainly provides lots of fodder for gossip.

I still feel sorry for the kids - Levi mostly, but also Bristol, for having to put up with the ego driven narcissistic personality that is Sarah. It is all about her, after all.

Assuming I was out there in the public arena, if I had a baby, and people questioned the baby's parentage, I would make one statement about it, and then let it alone. Sarah continually brings it back up, because she lied about it. I think she protests too much.

WV: fliess

Amy1 said...

A couple of items you probably noticed but no one has posted yet:

--What's with Trig's birth being "the best thing that has ever happened to me"? Are her other children dog-meat now?

--Her brief account of Bristol announcing the Tripp preg to her ("she painstakingly and shockingly confided that she was going to be a Mom " at 2:30) repeats the Bristol/Greta/video version ("worse than labor") of that conversation. Which conflicts with the Sherry Johnston version of waving the test stick about and lots of giggles all around. I've looked and looked, but I can't find the link to that Sherry Johnston interview in the Brit blog. Can anyone help me find that link, please?

(My view remains that they switched the announcement stories around: the first announcement (of Trig) being the worse-than-labor one, and the second announcement (of Tripp) being the giggles all around. Why do I think they switched them? Perhaps initially it was off the cuff -- When Greta asked Bristol in the video interview, Bristol must have reached into her memory and made a decision that the actual giggles story wouldn't play well in Peoria, so she reached for her other story. Perhaps not realizing that Sherry had given this interview.)

--". . . no one would know. But I would know." (at 7:25) : does this sound a little hypothetical? Like it was how the story is supposed to go, rather than how real life was lived. Wouldn't it make more sense to say "No one knew. I knew."

--"Maybe someday I'm gonna sit down and wrrrrrrrite about it and tell ya just how interesting it has been" at 7:02 on this CNN video.--"When you grow up in a family full of school teachers, . . ." she said. But isn't Chuck the only one?

--Okay, I won't sic Katie on her, or phone Chuck, but re the "if you explored 1000 acres of Alaska a day, it would take over 1000 years to cover it all" quote. It must be based on the

-- 1911Encyclopedia Brittanica area of Alaska, which says AK is 586,400 sq mi, --whereas Wikipedia gives the total area as 663268 sq mi,

--and Merriam-Webster gives is as 615,230 sq mi. Can anyone explain these rather different numbers? Or is it a fact of life in AK that there are no solid, clear facts?

Yes, a virtuoso performance. Great comic timing. Great tears at just the right moment (a first for SP, I think? and much better done than Hillary's). I am not one who thinks she's not smart. Smart and able, she is. Just think what she could do if she 'fessed up (wrote the book for $10M); gave her family the start for healing and moving on; took time off and went to Harvard for a few years. She could really be a HUGE (and way better, ethically) player. To say nothing of being unique in the annals of politics: meteoric rise; giant hoax; keeps it concealed in spite of everything; 'fesses up on her own because it's the right thing to do; gives trust funds to her family; continues her education; and returns as an EVEN MORE CHARISMATIC PLAYER on the political scene. Wow! What a good Act 4. Unique.

p.s.: Good rant, Lynn. You are so right. Thanks!

B said...

Mary G. said,
"she would have found out perhaps in late September--when she was at an IOGCC meeting in New Orleans (9/22/2007-2/24/2007)"

So Sarah has constructed the following timeline:

She had missed a period and bought a stick to pee on around 9/23/07. That could be about 5 weeks along, so fertilization mid-August. (When was she out of the country without Todd? July 2007?)

Assuming she meant the amnio was at 13 weeks, rather than the amnio results, that's around 11/23/07 and results could be 12/04/07.

With fertilization mid-August, TriG is due mid-May.

This is her story and she's sticking to it.

LisanTX said...

OMG; the Esquire story on Todd has some more info/confusion on birth dates!

The first day of the Esquire interview is before Dec. 24. The Wasilla police come to the Palin house to ask if Piper could give a statement about an incident in which she was a passenger of a car (domestic incident with Molly).

The article continues ONE MONTH later. On page 6 of the article,
http://tinyurl.com/dn4ers
it is 10 days before the Iron Dog Race and Todd is getting his snow machine ready.

The race started on Feb. 8, so 10 days before that date would be around Jan. 28-29.

The article then states that "a week later" Bristol had a baby boy, Tripp!!!!! Which would be a few days before the Iron Dog race---so in the first few days of February!!!!

Remember the picture of Bristol on the Immoral Minority website showing a postpartum Trip?
http://tinyurl.com/d5pww2

The article states that Piper gave her statement to the police on Dec. 24. This helps confirm that the first part of the interview was before Dec. 24; therefore the "one month later" portion of the interview had to be no earlier than January 24.

Ooooooo. Diana, here's more information for your timeline.

This is big. Does anyone else read the article to lay out the dates this way?

Lilybart said...

Trig's birth IS the best thing that ever happened to her, or around her.

She is the darling of the religious right for that DS baby. Trig is her ticket to fame.

Lilybart said...

I wish I had the time, but maybe someone could put together a chart of the various stories.

Amnio: the Trailblazer story, the radio interview story, the right to life dinner story......etc

There are so many details with many different stories in print, that it would be fun to chart it. Then ask her, which story is it??

Bretta said...

Midnightcajun said:
""Another thing, what's with her claiming she was out of town when her doctor told her she was pregnant? I always found out while I was still sitting in my doctors office, and that was decades ago--including once in a third world country. Surely they're not still using 1940s technology up there in the Last Frontier?""

LOL - No, No, we have the high-tech pee sticks here, too!! In fact about 17 years ago - my second pregnancy - the doctor's office accepted my word on the result to start my prenatal appointments.

The Nuchal-Fold Scan, done between 11-14 weeks, examines the nuchal fold, a clear area in the back of the neck, using high-resolution ultrasound; it requires specialized training and equipment; it is not available everywhere.

Performng that test in New York in late September 2007 is consistent with a full-term delivery born in mid-April 2008.

The nuchal fold scan is not diagnostic; it is only used to determine if invasive testing is required to rule out Down Syndrome.

Chorionic villus sampling (CVS) can be done before 16 weeks to diagnose Down Syndrome. Amniocentesis is not performed until after 16 weeks.

B said...

LisanTx,
Esquire says Bristol had her baby a week after Sherry was arrested, which was a month before the part of the interview in the Davis garage. I think those dates are consistent with 12/27/08. I don't believe them but they are consistent.

Jessica said...

Okay I have a question.

In the right to life interview Sarah says that Todd did not know in October 2007.

Does this mean he did not know she was pregnant or that he did not know about the baby having Downs?

I have three kids and by the time I was three months along with my last one, which happened to be the smallest one, my naked stomach had a baby bump. So if she saying that Todd did not know that she was pregnant then I am totally not buying that at all.

Sarah is a slim woman and her stomach, pregnant with her 5th baby would show, especially with no clothes on. I'm fairly sure that Todd saw her with nothing on at some point in October.

Did she mean he didn't know she was pregnant, or didn't know the baby had Downs?

B said...

Bretta,

"Some medical facilities may perform amniocentesis as early as 11 weeks." I just Googled amniocentesis and found this.

If she (whoever) had the amnio late Nov. and got results early Dec., Sarah's saying 13 weeks -- because it is possible at 13 wks and that way TriG is due mid-May -- when perhaps it was really 16 weeks and TriG was due late April.

pearlygirl said...

Well, in regard to saints and sinners, one of my favorite expressions is "Every saint has a past and every sinner a future."

Speaking as a agnostic-skeptic (and big time sinner), I still know a lot of wonderful Christians who are nothing like the hypocritical Palins so I'm glad that Morgan reminded people of that.

Burgh said...

*** Amy1 said...
A couple of items you probably noticed but no one has posted yet:

--What's with Trig's birth being "the best thing that has ever happened to me"? Are her other children dog-meat now?

--Her brief account of Bristol announcing the Tripp preg to her ("she painstakingly and shockingly confided that she was going to be a Mom " at 2:30) repeats the Bristol/Greta/video version ("worse than labor") of that conversation. Which conflicts with the Sherry Johnston version of waving the test stick about and lots of giggles all around. I've looked and looked, but I can't find the link to that Sherry Johnston interview in the Brit blog. Can anyone help me find that link, please?***

here you go Amy1!

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/article47917.ece

Amy1 said...

Oh thank you NYTabloidChick. It's even better than I remembered it. More detail. SP might say BOTH responses occurred at the announcement of either preg, but the amount of detail in Sherry's quotes makes that hard to sustain. Hard to be surprised twice on one preg announcement.

And it IS a close-to-contemporaneous version, from Sherry.

I bet our dear Rex has this all worked out, laid out like pieces in a chess game, which his reputation proves he can play well, and SP's blathery comments prove she will lose as soon as Rex wants her to. I am so glad he is in the picture.

Thx!

Amy1 said...

Here's something I never knew about amniocentesis -- perhaps you all did:

"Amniocentesis also provides access to DNA for paternity testing prior to delivery." (about halfway down)

Remember us all puzzling over the fact of amniocentesis having taken place, for a woman who would not abort for any reason. Why, oh why, we asked ourselves, since there's a small risk associated with this invasive test.

Amy1 said...

So, yet another reason for Levi to do his own personal, private paternity test: SOMEone may have already done one (pre-delivery via the amnio) and is likewise keeping the info secret. If it is info that adversely affects Levi's interests, I would want to know that, if I were Levi.

But again, I breathe a sigh of relief. I'm sure Rex Butler has all these bases covered.

Ivyfree said...

"Amniocentesis also provides access to DNA for paternity testing prior to delivery."

You still have to have access to paternal DNA, or the suspected paternal DNA, for comparison purposes. It would be useless unless there was a man who was willing to cooperate with the testing process, and I don't think that they'd bother- they probably know who the father is.

Amy1 said...

Ivyfree -- I'm thinking of using hair from the unwilling, unknowing man/men being tested. Or taking the buccal swab when he is napping? Seems so easy to me. Just for one's own private info.

I bet it's already been done.

leu2500 said...

NYTC:

Thanks for the link to the NoTW article. Notice that Levi is wearing a wedding ring.

Anonymous said...

***MODERATOR REMINDER****

This is a discussion-based blog. It is NOT an echo chamber, so please don't post criticisms of people who don't agree with everyone else here unless you like wasting your time.

There are people who are intrigued by this topic who can't or won't be able to believe anything one way or another until the truth is completely revealed. Those people are just as welcome as anyone else to comment here and to voice their opinions and/or skepticism.

I shouldn't have to repeat myself on this matter, but apparently memories around here are short...

Anonymous said...

Windy City Woman and others

Here is the link to Britta's Blog whilst she stayed in Spain 2008.

http://tinyurl.com/d7ckjk

Kathleen

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 333 of 333   Newer› Newest»