Thursday, May 7, 2009

Enough is Enough

The Palin Deception website began seven and a half months ago, and the blog only very shortly after the site. Since the very beginning of my efforts to document the bizarre inconsistencies, troubling anomalies, and reasonable questions about Sarah Palin's alleged pregnancy (as well as the outright lies told by her directly,) I have attempted to rely heavily on the considerable photographic evidence available that she was never pregnant. To that end, on this blog and website, we have published literally scores of photographs in which her appearance is completely inconsistent with a forty-four year old woman five, six, seven, eight months pregnant with her fifth child. By and large, the main stream media has ignored this evidence.

This is made all the more ironic because the "Sarah Palin had Trig because Sarah Palin wouldn't lie" contingent has chosen to use a single "conclusive" photograph repeatedly to prove that Palin WAS pregnant, in spite of the fact that everyone must recognize logically that it is easy to appear pregnant if you are NOT (think of how many times it has been done convincingly on film and in theater) but it is nearly impossible to NOT look pregnant if you definitely are.

This photograph was allegedly taken on April 13, 2008, five days prior to Trig's birth. The problems with this photograph have been discussed in the past, in numerous posts on this blog, (here and here) but I will summarize the strongest points again.
1. The photo was released nowhere until after her VP nomination in late August.
2. The photo was released anonymously on Flickr in low resolution by one "Erik99559" to an account that was created solely to release this photo (and one other taken simultaneously.) Andrea Gusty (the reporter also shown in the photo,) in January did state publicly that the photo was taken with her camera, but she never explained who Erik is or was, why this photo was released only to Flickr, or why this was done anonymously four and a half months after the photo was taken. It also doesn't explain why, quietly, some time in the last six weeks, the account and photos just disappeared.
3. The photo was taken by a camera whose date was intentionally altered.
4. The photo was altered after it was uploaded to Flickr to lower the resolution.

Yet this single photo has been viewed as absolute proof positive that Palin was pregnant, and anyone who questions it is a "truther," "nut-job," "left wing looney" or worse. (Believe me, much worse - you should see my mail.)

Today, yet another photo has surfaced which - in my opinion - shows conclusively that Sarah Palin was faking a pregnancy in April of 2008, and frankly doing a fairly crappy job of it. This photo was taken on April 8, 2008 - exactly five days prior to the photo with Andrea Gusty in which she is conspicuously (even largely) pregnant and ten days prior to the announced birth date of Trig Palin. No, it's not terribly clear, and all we have is a photo of a photo, but in my opinion it's clear enough.

It was taken by a teacher, of a chance encounter between two students with Gov. Palin on a set of stairs of the capitol building in Juneau. Again, we see the floppy print scarf, tied in a full way, (again also begging the question why she continued to wear scarves - something she had claimed she did to HIDE her pregnant condition prior to March - AFTER the pregnancy was announced.) And again, careful examination shows the bulky scarf looking "poochey," but the LINE of the scarf on the left side of the photo (Palin's right), thanks to a clear side shot here, as it falls down against her body is completely, utterly straight. Contrast also the hand position. In the April 8th photo, her hand (clutching the two Blackberries,) rests almost flat against her abdomen. In the Gusty photo, she can barely clasp her hands in front of her.

Look above again at the Gusty photo. Try to picture what would happen to a scarf as it draped down her body if she were wearing one. (If any of you female readers are pregnant, similar to Sarah's build and close to delivery, by all means put on a jacket and scarf, have a photo of yourself taken at the same angle and we'll happily publish it for comparison!) Now look again at the April 8th photo. There is no doubt at all. In the Gusty photo, for a TV interview, she is wearing some sort of device or prosthetic to mimic a pregnant appearance. She goes out of her way to appear pregnant, largely so. On April 8th, quickly dashing up the stairs of the capitol, she relies on a floppy orange print scarf tied in a bulky fashion, and while moving quickly from place to place, the distracting floppiness and shape of the scarf did exactly what it was supposed to - mask the fact that there's nothing underneath. But - oh no - here are some pesky students who want a photo and, with no good reason to say no, she says yes. Bad idea. Because there's no six pound baby under that scarf. Not even close. As one very sharp blog reader said once, "Scarves hide hickeys. Not pregnancies."

So when is the charade going to stop? When will the main stream media put a stop to this "emperor's new clothes" charade? When will someone say, "Enough is enough?"


Silvergirl said...

There is an article on the Huffington Post about Sarah's dropping popularity. I think people are getting it, especially if they live in AK.

There are also 3 articles about Bristol, and her talk show appearances.

We may not even convince anyone of the faux pregnancy, but I do think people can see what a faux politician Sarah has become. She is just gearing up for running for the Presidency in 2012, and she is not actually doing much work to govern her state. No one is going to be interested in supporting her candidacy for dogcatcher, let alone the Presidency, by that time.

CasaCalvo said...

What is SP doing using the back stairs? And what is under the small white circle on the right?

Lilybart said...

AND the Gusty photo is only one WITHOUT the huge scarf.

in case anyone missed that

texas said...

FYI. I found this at another website. Its very telling if you ask me.

NoMore said...

Interesting that they would use this picture to announce that Bristol was pregnant:

Didn't Audrey say this was definitely taken in 2006???

the problem child said...

Caso Calvo, I believe the smallest circle is covering one of those hang-around your neck name tags that convention-goers often wear. Blocking such a thing out would be consistent with concealing the identities of the students.

midnightcajun said...

You gave me a heart attack, Audrey; when I saw "enough is enough" I thought, Oh no--she's going to stop blogging about this!

The photo is another wonderful find. It reinforces what I've always thought about the "Erik" photos: they were obviously staged by Gusty and Palin. It's why they filmed Palin's April 13 interview in the empty hall of the legislature long after everyone else had already gone home (and hours after Sarah, never a workaholic, would normally have gone home). In fact, if you look at Palin's official schedule, you'll see that her press event was scheduled earlier in the day, and that the TV interview was supposed to be at Palin's office.

The video footage that Gusty released as corroborating "evidence" NEVER showed Palin below the bust. This was deliberate, because if those who had seen Palin at the legislature that day "not showing" had gone home that night to see a heavily pregnant Palin on their nightly news, everyone would have known something was fishy. So our conspirators waited until everyone had gone home, put Palin in an empathy belly (borrowed from Dr. Cathy?), had her interviewed on TV but with the camera never showing anything below the waist. Then they had good old future press sec Bill snap a shot from behind the cameraman. If you watch the video carefully, you can tell when the photo is being taken: Palin is very obviously posing for it, and she has her trademark cat-swallowed-the-canary smirk. It's why those of us studying the photo before Gusty released the video knew something was fishy--the pose and expression are just wrong and so obviously staged. Cleverly staged, but still staged.

Although, not so clever, because that HUGE empathy belly, compared to all the pictures in which she doesn't "show" and all the statements by Palin and others saying she "never showed" make it pretty obvious that this photo is a bid bald-faced preconceived ugly lie.

Gusty's boss should be asking some very searching questions, and Gusty should be making some public apologies--before cleaning out her desk. I'm sure Sarah would give her faithful lackey a job--for the few months she has left in office.

CasaCalvo said...

Thanks the problem child.

I think the picture does a great job showing SP NOT pregnant but the students look awfully big and heavily dressed for April. What's up with that?

Isis M. Nocturne said...

Once again, I am surprised by how A SINGLE PHOTO convinced people that SP was pregnant... I would need more evidence than one photo in ANY case!

Ennealogic said...

The outfit SP wears in this photo is the same as the one she wore during one day of the Elan Frank video shoot:

The image above was grabbed from a video and shows a very un-pregnant Sarah in early April, literally days before she supposedly birthed Trig.

The only reason that more media have not picked up on this is nobody wants to be the first. But if the dam breaks, believe it, everyone will be all over it.

WV: blessem !!

Bless 'em all who keep on this story!

Patrick said...

Let me allow to repost this message here - I will also add to the album some of Bristol's very recent pictures:

Kathleen has already posted the link to the PDF-file with the "lost" official Palin family Christmas picture from 2007.

I have now created an album on my flickr-account in which I have combined all those photos which we have recently found of the big Palin family photo shoot, which happened either on the 13th September (says the photographer) or on the 14th September (says SP's official schedule). In any case, this is extremely interesting. The link is:

I have contrasted those pictures from September 2007, which show a surprisingly "bulky" Bristol with the pictures of her we got from myspace, taken in June 2007, just three months earlier. In these pictures she looks very skinny.

One justified question is why the Christmas picture which was taken on the steps in the Juneau mansion in September 2007 was not widely released. The answer seems pretty obvious if you take a good look on Bristol's belly.

Patrick (PD research)

Amy1 said...

How do you know for sure that the photo was taken on April 10, 2008?

Without that info, it could be claimed that the photo was taken at some other time and therefore prove nothing.

The thing about the two photos here is that they are conclusively dated by other photos, widely distributed, taken at the same event, on the same date.

ravenstrick said...

Bravo. Bravisimo

Lady Rose said...

This photo is definitely another nail in the coffin

of course the palinbots will never accept anything - but the rest of the world can plainly see Sarah Palin was faking this pregnancy

My admiration and thanks for all the hard work all of you put into finding all the evidence - it is truly an amazing job.

Audrey said...

Amy1 -

We know the photos were taken on that date this way:

The school youngsters in the photo were on a school trip to Juneau that lasted from April 8th - April 11th. Although they did not know which of the days they were in Juneau they had encountered the Governor (I was told it could have been either the 9th, 10th, or the 11th) based on the fact that we have photos of her from the 10th wearing the same outfit, we went from that day. But - of course - if she wore exactly the same thing, the previous or next day - our dating could be off by one day either way.

But I am absolutely confident this was taken 10 days - give or take a day - prior to Trig's announced birth.

Patrick said...

Additionally, I would like to urge everybody to watch this TV-clip with Michael Carey (ADN columnist), which was recorded in September 2008:

I had also posted this before, but it might be that not everybody had seen it.

Patrick (PD research)

passinthru said...

Audrey, I'm just sending a big old pre-Mother's Day hug. You sound really frustrated, and no wonder.

I simply detest being lied to, I resent people meddling with motherhood, and we know that's happening here.

But go enjoy whatever Spring is showing you. It'll be all right. :)

my word is kazzitch, lol

MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel said...

To return to something Audrey posted awhile back: Andrea Gusty wrote in a "dateline Juneau" piece that the state legislative session had ended "late at night," while the ADN stated that session ended at LUNCHTIME. That gave SP plenty of time to put on the empathy belly and pose for Gusty.

And the thick middle and double chin on BP in the Sept 2007 "Xmas" photos tell us all we need to know about why that photo was never circulated widely. GINO is perfectly slim and leans forward effortlessly--as no pregnant multipara would do at that point.

Dangerous said...

Floppy scarf is the give-away. At all times she wore it, it was designed to hide her mid-section. It is reasonable and appropriate to conclude that the purpose for wearing scarves was the same at all times as well: to hide the fact that she wasn't pregnant. She would have to do so from the point she decided she had to fake and for the duration of the faking. But she wouldn't have to continue disguising her midsection if her stated reason -- she didn't want people to judge her -- was true. Once she announced, hiding her midsection would do nothing to help her then.

Criminal defendants have been convicted and executed based on inconsistencies in their stories larger than this. Add to the inconsistencies that she controls evidence that would exonerate her from our accusations if it existed, but doesn't release that information yet continues to profess her innocence, takes me beyond a reasonable doubt.

Note that when she does look large on April 18, the scarf is gone.


Amy1 said...

Does anyone have a link to the two videos associated with the Gusty/Palin April 14 photos -- the one that aired at the time, and the one a couple of months ago that had Gusty explaining that the earlier one aired and that the still photos were A-ok. I'm having trouble finding those two videos. The links we had to them seem to have new/different stuff now, at least on the ones I've looked at so far.

As many times as I looked at the still photos taken at that time, I don't recall ever seeing the bottom photo shown here (and my copy of it is here).

Not that this bottom photo shows us anything new, but it's an additional one -- am I correct? Look at SP's face -- it's at a different angle. Just odd to see a new one pop up all of a sudden.

rpinME said...


April in AK, especially early April, is not balmy & warm. Jackets--and these are lighter--not winter-weight--are entirely appropriate. If you vist the Mudflats blog at all, you can follow the weather button (on the left) and see that temperatures are not all that warm--right now, today, it's sunny & 47 degrees farenheit, and I've seen temperatures in the thirties through the month of April.

Also, Sarah is not that tall & if those are two highschool boys, then they're really not all that large in comparison.

muah said...

Has anyone watched or read GVS on the Air Force One photos that cost $328,835?
She is hot and bothered when the federal government spends our money and doesn't release our photos. They might be listening to her, they will be releasing one photo.

I don't expect she'd speak up for Alaskans that want photos released or to know why so many disappeared. Isn't there someone in Alaska that could take that on?

KaJo said...

Ennealogic said @May 7, 2009 1:14 PM:
The outfit SP wears in this photo is the same as the one she wore during one day of the Elan Frank video shoot:
That's right,'s the same picture Diana has in her Flickr Truthseeker222 collection ( ) dated April 8th, 2008.

That picture shows the "lie" (pun intended) of the scarf to be even more straight-up-and-down than in the new picture. It should be noted that the scarf may be the same one, but it's been tied differently because the color pattern is slightly different. Thus, doubtless a different day or different time of day than Audrey's picture.

Anyone notice what's IN Audrey's newly released photo and the one Ennealogic and I have linked to, that's NOT in the Gusty staged photo?

Yeah, Palin's two ubiquitous Blackberries. It seems a rare photo when she's not holding them. But it would have been awkward to put her hands down around that "belly" still holding them... :P

Kathleen said...


Gusty released the third photo in January.

You can find copies of the Gusty videos on Patrick's Youtube

Virginia Voter said...

No doubt Bristol was quite a bit heavier in Sept 07 than she was just three months earlier.

She also has shed the Tripp weight very quickly, which points to more evidence that she probably was pregnant with Trig when those pictures were taken.

I blame McCain for cursing us with this family of power hungry family of intellectually challenged overbreeders. I hope Arizonans vore him out of office next year.

Slappy said...

Someone needs to do a comparison shot with a belly and a similar scarf and see how it "lays". It would be easier for people to picture why that straight line means something because honestly, if you are inclined to believe she was pregnant you can imagine a belly under all that fluff.

Daisydem said...

Would someone remind me/clarify for me the date on the one family photo we had for Palin's (outdoor, on white deck, mountain and water in background) which we were subsequently told was from 2006; now we have family photo obstensibly from 2007 (Christmas photo): the ages of everyone looks the same (Piper look about 5-6, missing one tooth in front); all are wearing the same clothes as in the outdoor family photo except for Sarah who is wearing a red jacket instead of black. The hair styles are very similar-even the same on Willow, Piper and I think Bristol too. When exactly were the two photos taken? Is this Sarah's red jacket (not campaign clothes?).

ilovepoodles said...

I just wanted to say how exciting this photo find is! I was doing a quick check of your blog before I leave work to get my kids but I had to sit back down and devour the post and comments. This is GOOD stuff!! I may even be late now, but it was worth it.

wayofpeace said...

thanks PATRICK for the persuasisve side-by-side pictures of BP, 3 months apart.

could she have gained that much weight everywhere (face, bust and midriff) that quickly?

pregnancy seems the most likely reason: baby conceived in summer '07, birthed in early april (perhaps prematurely) catching faux-mom by surprise, which is only way to explain why SP's took her sweet time to add extra padding to her false belly.

mlewis said...

Re Amy1's photos, the bottom one: several things bother me about this photo. I remember the time when the top photo (and the three amigos) were first discussed, and people talked on and on about the floor pattern of the rug. It's pretty clear in the bottom photo that the rug patterns just don't match. Some one who lives in Alaska and has been in that spot can verify the lousy carpet laying job (the state ought to ask for a refund). Carpet layers really do try to match the pattern, or how about using the kind of carpet, such as tweed, where matching isn't the priority. As someone with an artistic eye, that carpet is off-- or two photos were spliced together, and someone forgot about matching the carpet pattern. (When I enlarge the pictures, Sarah appears a little more fuzzy than the rest of the photo-- maybe it's just me).

The other thing that bothers me is that Sarah is not looking directly into the camera. She has internal radar and knows exactly how to smile into the camera lens. Is she really listening to Gusty, or, again, as some suggested long ago, was her photo 'shopped' in there, and the angle is off, just like the carpet pattern.

Add to the suspicions about the date, that this is the only pregnancy photo with no scarf, its mysterious appearance when it was useful to the campaign. Great find, Amy1! And,it's quite a contrast with the school boys picture.

Lisa Graas said...

I have been pregnant five times and I was no bigger than Sarah Palin is in this photo when I was pregnant the fifth time. Not that the number of pregnancies has anything to do with it, but just saying.....with my other children I was larger than I was with my fifth. It just happens that way sometimes. She is not "clearly pregnant" in the photo, but she very well could be the same size in both photos you share because of the way different outfits can conceal the belly. I know because I was that size when pregnant with my fifth child.

Truthseeker2 said...

Very nice find -- well done! It's all the more interesting given that the square pillow photo was taken during the same couple of days. The Christmas photo on the stairway is also excellent. Bristol is obviously pregnant. I think Patrick's observation of how much Bristol's physique changed from June to September is absolutely correct. There is no doubt in my mind anymore that the truth is Bx2.

The Bx2 scenario makes her new role as the spokesperson for teenage abstinence all the more ironic and hypocritical. I guess that's what it takes to be a Palin -- lying and hypocrisy. And Bristol is proving an apt student. Hopefully American teenagers, like American voters, will say "thanks but no thanks" to Bristol, Sarah and their sorry "Christian" values. How pitiful they are. How pathetic.

Which reminds me of Todd's evasion of Matt Lauer's question about whether he knew Bristol and Levi were having sex. It would have been easy to simply say "no," but instead he pulled a tip from the Sarah Palin playbook: I'll-answer-a-different-question-than-the-one-you-asked. Proving that they knew. Score another one for Levi.

Not that it matters much, but my hunch as to why the Christmas photos were taken in September is that they wanted Track in the photos, and he would soon be unavailable and have a shaved head from being in the Army.

wayofpeace said...

michael rowe at HUFF-POST:

OK, I have to ask: How on earth does Bristol Palin find time to fly around singing the praises of sexual abstinence, between pursuing that elusive high school diploma, and caring for the son she and Levi Johnston had as...well...teenagers not practicing sexual abstinence?

And second of all, why is the daughter of Alaska's increasingly unpopular governor still in the news at all?

Cynic that I am, I confess that my first thought was, Bristol Palin is the last person on earth anyone would want as a poster girl for "abstinence education" for several reasons besides the obvious one. For one thing, her pregnancy was the most glaring proof that the moral agenda her mother was so hell bent to impose on everyone else's family didn't even work in her own family.

For another, there has been no apparent downside to the out-of-wedlock birth of her son, who has, by all accounts, been a joy for the entire family. As a textbook example of an accidental pregnancy gone right, what is Bristol going to tell the girls she lectures to? "Well yes, I had a baby and I wasn't married. It was a blessing. We all look after the baby, and the whole family loves him, and they all help out.

But---don't get pregnant. It'll be a disaster for you!" Or, better still, is she going to continue to say it on television, made up like a teen idol and styled to the hilt, with her handsome father sitting beside bouncing his beautiful grandson on his knee?

And this presents an accurate portrait of the consequences of teenage pregnancy how, exactly? What's the message? Where's the deterrent?

Audrey said...

Please note that I made an error in dating the photo in this post. It is April 8th NOT April 10th. I have corrected the blog post.

Also, in my lame attempt to help Morgan moderate comments this evening I accidentally rejected instead of approved about six comments about five minutes ago. (So around 8:15 pm eastern time.) If you don't see your comment, I apologize. I guess I'll leave comment moderation to the expert!

B said...

Daisydem said...
Would someone remind me/clarify for me the date on the one family photo we had for Palin's (outdoor, on white deck, mountain and water in background) which we were subsequently told was from 2006;***

That family photo is mid-Sept. 2007, same as the 2007 Xmas photo. The picture that was dated to 2006 has Bristol in a green sweater.

mel said...

Lisa says, "She is not "clearly pregnant" in the photo, but she very well could be the same size in both photos you share because of the way different outfits can conceal the belly. I know because I was that size when pregnant with my fifth child."

Which size would that be, Lisa? The flat belly size, or, 5 days later, the very big belly size? Did a change like that happen to you? Please explain what you believe the outfits are contributing to the pictures.


Anne said...

Holy Moly! Awesome find Audrey! And I'm so excited you're still aggressively on the case!

This week has just about done me in with Bristol's Candie's abstinence campaign - so many conflicting thoughts going on there my head is ready to explode.

That scarf excuse of hers is such bunk - pregnant bellies at that stage poke out - they are not just a pile of blubber that mushes around -it is a large form with a rather solid dimension that pokes way out from one's regular frame - and especially so for petite women. There is no way those scarves would hang straight down like that if she were in her last trimester or had a profile remotely like the one shown in those Gusty photos!

Amy1 said...

Exactly, WayofPeace (May 7, 2009 4:45 PM), and I would add one more point: would you take advice from a chronic and habitual LIAR?

If we have any ears for Bristol at all, it's because of SP, and why would anyone want to listen to a liar and her hangers-on? I keep reminding myself that that's what we are out to prove. LIAR! Yes, hoax, too. That part has all the drama, but it was LIAR that got me started here.

I parted company with Hillary because her sniper-lie reminded me of all the other lies I suspected her and her guy Bill of. I had semi-forgotten. But the sniper-lie was the one that broke my back. Of course both Hill and Bill have a lot to offer, unlike SP, so it was a lot harder to say goodbye.

Can you believe that the columnists are all over the Edwards re-hash? Of what national importance is THAT at this point? Whereas this SP lie/hoax IS of national importance -- to come to closure on it so public life can move forward with one less crook, without SP.

B said...

NoMore said...
Interesting that they would use this picture to announce that Bristol was pregnant:
Didn't Audrey say this was definitely taken in 2006??? ***

Yes, 2006. Perhaps she was pregnant then and miscarried. More likely her choice of clothing -- low riding jeans that push out the belly flesh -- just emphasized a rounded belly. But because Bristol looks a little pregnant in this photo, it was used by the writer on Daily Kos as evidence of his "Bristol had TriG" thesis. Then unfortunately, when it was shown to be not within a TriG time frame, his whole theory was discounted -- even though many of us believe it to be true. If he had shown the two camo dress photos, and compared Bristol to Sarah, this story -- and unveiling the truth -- might have taken a different path.

mel said...

Also wondered, Audrey, if you could say how this photo came into your posession. Did you just get an out-of-the-blue e-mail? From someone who just now remembered the day it was taken? Or maybe was swayed by a particular other photo/incident? Is it the only photo? Did you do the "photo of the photo" or did it arrive that way? It heartens me to think that someone, an AK schoolteacher, knew the relevance of the shot.

By the way, SP's left "belly" looks even straighter than her right side in the shot.

Yes, BP definitely gained weight between those two pix of her. If it's preg weight--well, that's a big difference (total body, face, as well as belly) for being just a couple of months along--or one month if you believe Trig was really a month premature. Seems like quite a few pounds so early. There's always the possibility that she gained for unrelated reasons--a trauma, say, or big change in diet.


B said...


This photo find is a great Mothers Day gift. Thanks for staying on the case.

wv = told l(i)e

B said...


I'm thinking about your suggestion that we leave Bristol alone. I've come to trust your insights.

I wonder if the Candies gig might be an avenue for getting the MSM on the case. They are covering the fact that Bristol is a spokesgirl, though not how poorly suited her story is to that role.

What if the camo dress photos, compared to the MySpace photos, compounded by the disappearance of other photos and of Bristol herself during the TriG pregnancy -- could be used to ask Candies if their poster girl has actually had two babies, did not practice abstinence even when she was 16,and more so, even after HAVING a first teen pregnancy? Could we ask Candies what vetting they did to decide to use Bristol for this campaign, ask them to certify that their spokeperson is telling the truth, that she actually learned from the mistake of teen sex rather than repeating it? (Not that sex-selling Candies gives a rat's a## about teen pregnancy.)

Just a thought.

Amy1 said...

Well, while we are on the Abstinence bandwagon, let me just add that the message I get from all this is the ago-old, elitist truth that if you have wealthy, indulgent parents and you are used to having your own way, and your parents bail you out every time, you can just do any damn thing you want and get away with it. No downside. Sure, Bristol and her 1 or 2 teen unwed pregnancies, but I am thinking of Michael Skakel (Kennedy cousin) who got away with murder for many years, . . . . Oh stop me: I'm not going to make a list. We all know what I mean.

The message of all this is that if you are poor or for whatever reason have to fend for yourself, support yourself, or be accountable -- only then is there a downside.

So Abstinence is great if the result is going to be fine either way. But for the rest of us lesser mortals, we need a surer contraceptive and we have to make some tough either/or choices that seem off the radar for the SP crowd.

Lilybart said...

Does everyone know that if you click on the photo you will get a much larger version, then on my mac, I click again and get a zoom. Very clear there is nothing under that scarf.

T in Canada said...

Those side-by-side photos of Bristol only confirm my previous belief. The hypocrisy only gets greater with BP on the abstinence train. And none of them even seem to remember three months ago, when BP admitted it was not realistic.
It occurs to me that she is adapting this stance to enhance her mother's career, and rebut Levi. Loud and clear, she wishes she hadn't had sex and knows he hears "with you" tacked on the end. It seems like a combination cheap insult and self-serving statement.
Weird how they think nobody is aware of her complete 180 degree turnaround on her own opinion in three months.
But a lot can happen in three months - pregnancy, birth, and pregnancy.

Someone needs to call BP out and ask for an explanation as to what, besides having obviously had sex, qualifies her to be a spokesperson. How can they glamorize this baby, and now almost denounce him as a burden to be avoided? All while hiding the true parentage of the first baby?

Boggles and angers.

The mainstream media NEEDS to see Patrick's (linked) comparison photos of BP. There are so many more pictures of SP that prove she wasn't pregnant than that prove she does. The easiest condition to fake is pretty apparent to even the dumbest of us.

It may not affect me in a large way, as I've said before, but the lie is to make a fool of everyone, not just the few. Keep it up, everyone.

NakedTruth said...

Teens in NYC didn't get Bristol's message. Read article below.

The below statement in the article caught my attention.

Their classmate, Rose Acevado, 16, knows the pain of a teen pregnancy. Her sister suffered a miscarriage after hiding a pregnancy for nine months. Today, her sister is pregnant again.

"This is a good thing," she said of the message of abstinence, but not from Bristol Palin. "We'd take it from someone true and honest, not a celebrity."

I made a comment awhile back about my belief that Bristol and Levi wanted to get pregnant right away after Trig was born with DS. I could see a teen being really depressed about having a special needs child or a miscarriage. Many first thought would be to keep trying until they get it right. It's a sense of failure for some. I have even seen this happen to adults.

This is exactly why Sherry Johnston, Levi and Bristol were so excited about Bristol being pregnant with Trig. They were hoping to have a healthy baby that they could keep. Why else would they be so happy about a two unemployed teenagers having a baby out of wedlock? Sarah was shocked because she just couldn't believe that Bristol was pregnant again.

I really hope that Bristol doesn't start to take non-scripted questions from her teenage audience in these townhall meetings. Because if she does, I think she just may get some questions that she would not want to answer. :-)

jeanette said...

Some have wondered why anyone thought Bristol would be a good spokesperson for the Candie campaign. I think they knew she would give them just exactly what they wanted, publicity for the meeting or whatever they called it and the foundation itself. It seems with Candie it is all about marketing and they knew after the exposure Levi got, that Bristol would bring them lots of publicity, including "news" programs.

midnightcajun said...

Sorry, Lisa Grass, but I find your statement easy to say but hard to believe. People are pretty easy to look up on the web.

True, some tall, slim women barely show. However, Sarah Palin is shot. We have a picture of her during an earlier pregnancy looking like she's about to birth a house. We also have pictures of Palin looking obviously pregnant with Piper. While she was "pregnant" with Trig, she fluctuated from not showing, to looking like she's about to birth Sponge Bob, to not showing again (in Audrey's most recent photo find) to five days later looking like she's about to pop twins (in the staged Gusty photo) to not looking like she's pregnant again (in Texas). I suggest you read the website and blog before jumping to the conclusion you know the truth.

And I'm curious, what exactly is a "Trig Palan Impact Award"?

Mary G. said...

The pictures get better and better! And surely some Alaskans can dig up a few more good ones... maybe from Fairbanks??? We can only hope.
Truthseeker2, you are so right! The lies and the hypocrisy really get to me. I was sitting there, watching Bristol Ambassadress of Abstinence giving her prim answers in a series of television interviews yesterday, and my blood was boiling over--actually, I was suffering from an acute case of poison ivy, but it seemed that a new blister popped out with each dissimulation Bristol uttered--it was like some post-modern picture of Dorian Gray. And I say this, not because I was never a teenaged unwed mother (I wasn't, but this is not a point of moral superiority that I claim)--it is because I do not tell bald-faced lies and I do not try to force my values dogmatically onto others. To think that someone, who may have been pregnant twice before reaching her seventeenth birthday, is out there telling us all to wait 10 years!! It is much worse than acute poison ivy!
(PS A big thanks to Patrick for his computer savvy and his generosity in sharing evidence! and to all the intelligent commenters on this blog.)

Punkinbugg said...


That outdoor family shot with the white railings is on the rooftop of the Governor's Mansion in Juneau. The pictures on the staircase, the sitting around playing with cell phones on fancy couches and the Blackberry/Crosswalk/Jumprope pictures were all taken in Juneau, too.

If the furniture looks "normal" and there are plain white walls or picture windows, that's their house in Wasilla. Good grief! I can't believe I know this now.

I'd actually like to come up and see these cities in person... Up until this year, I never gave the state a second thought. Reading about the landscape on Mudflats makes me want to see it for myself.

wayofpeace said...


(Newser) – In a poll of 10,000 readers ahead of Mother's Day...

* Worst moms: Courtney Love, Dina Lohan, Britney Spears, Sarah Palin, and Kate Moss.

teal said...

great find!

DID anyone else notice that the person to SP's right, the front of his/her jacket is fully exposed - meaning that her big belly should have covered-up part of the jacket, instead we see the natural line of the jacket...

wayofpeace said...

LILLYBART, you're right.

zoomed in twice:
no BUMP there of any kind.

Audrey said...

In answer to the question as to how I obtained the photo, here's the story:

I have been in correspondence with someone who saw the framed photograph at a school. I know his/her full name. She has asked me not to identify the name of the school, or the name of the young people in the photo, but the ORIGINAL I have of the photo clearly identifies the names of the students (as well as helpfully identifying Gov. Palin in case we didn't know.) The names are written on the photo, within the frame.

The person who provided this to me did not have the opportunity to remove the photo from the frame before he/she snapped a quick picture of it.

The person was also able to provide me with written documentation as to when the students in question traveled to Juneau and the event that they traveled in conjunction with. He/she was unable to tell me whether the photo was taken on April 8th, 9th or 10th.

However, as I said in the post, based on the fact that we have other photos of Palin in the same outfit on April 8th, we are going with that date.

Amy1 said...

B, thanks! I have always read your posts with great interest too!

My suggestion to leave BP's commercial, charitable, and celebrity efforts completely alone was not made for any strategic reason. Just for a plain, dull, ethical one. She's not our quarry. The mother of Trig is not of interest to us. The father might be, because I suspect his identity holds the key to why there had to be the cover-up and hoax. But not the mother, esp if it's Bristol, even though she is such an easy target, as mothers always are, because they are the visible ones. But just because it's easy doesn't mean we have to do it. We can refrain. Keep an eye out for quotes, but let her be.

Bristol's naive efforts to find her feet in this tough old world of ours should not be the subject of our derisive merriment, even if they merit it. She's just a kid, still. Think of all the dumb stuff the best of us did when we were young and foolish. Only not on a national stage. I say give her LOTS of slack. Even ignore her efforts, tempting though it is to point out the ludicrous aspects.

The Candies people are the villains here -- to hire this young woman for a false mission. But asking the Candies people to reconcile their message with reality does not seem like a fruitful avenue. Look at their products. These are just sleazoid pond-scum money-sucking opportunists. Why should they care about our questions or any ethical inconsistencies they suggest. I think they would laugh at ethics.

No, we can support the (relatively) innocent, be kind to them, take the high road, and STILL remain unrelentingly on the trail of our main mission.

I might add that I find myself straying from my wish to be polite and kind to the innocent. Often. Only Morgan knows the extent of my sins, unless she has a good laugh with her pals behind the green velvet curtain at my expense. I wouldn't blame you, Morgan.

CasaCalvo said...

midnightcajun said...
Sorry, Lisa Grass, but I find your statement easy to say but hard to believe. People are pretty easy to look up on the web.

Nice midnightcajun - that helps clear up that comment.

CasaCalvo said...

I have always thought her face looked funny in the Gusty pictures but I think it looks normal in this latest picture.

I pay a lot of attention to faces and there is something not right with the way her face looks in those 'pregnancy' photos. There has been so much discussion surrounding those pictures but I always focused on how her face looked. In seeing these two pictures together for comparision just makes it more obvious that something was done to the Gusty pictures. Or the pictures were not take a week apart.


Best picture I've seen yet depicting Palin supposedly in March 08 looking not pregnant.

veebee said...

Let me preface my pre-written post with this:

WTG! Audrey. That is another great piece of evidence. You are nailing her coffin shut slowly but surely.

Now to my original post...

I am not sure if this has been mentioned here before but I found some pictures of GINO at the Alaska Outdoor Council Awards Banquet in a newsletter from the Alaska Outdoor Council dated Spring 2008. What is puzzling about this is conflicting dates regarding when this event was held. In the newsletter where I found the pictures the date says March 8, 2008 but GINO's travel records indicate it was between the 8th and the 10th of February. Alaska Journal of Commerce has a webpage that gives the date of the event as February 9th. There is a line of black text on the page that reads Web posted Sunday, February 17, 2008. So which publication should we believe as to the date and why the discrepancy? Is there a chance that something significant re: Trig occurred on one of the above dates? Another puzzling aspect is from the website, the link to the Spring 2008 newsletter is missing but others are missing as well, so perhaps that means nothing. What is obvious no matter which date is correct, though is GINO would be either 6 or 7 months pregnant in these pictures where she is wearing a windbreaker at a banquet, and once again doesn't appear to be pregnant at all.

Link to Alaska Outdoor Council newsletter:

Link to Alaska Journal of Commerce webpage:

Sorry, but I don't know how to to do the tinyurl.

sandra said...

Haven't heard from Andrea Gusty for a while. What happened to her? She seems to be the vulnerable link in all this.

Bretta said...

I watched again the Matt Lauer - BP interview with my investigator hat

Every time a question about advocating abstinence was asked, BP looked down or to *her left* which says that she does not believe what she is saying or that she is clearly lying.

The eyes of people who are lying will look to their left, as if reading a screen; a person's truth does not have to be 'read' - the truth is kept in a different part of the mind. Looking down means she did not want to make eye contact.

This means to me that her parents are really forcing the issue on BP to promote abstinence - for whatever reasons - maybe she is doing it for the money but that can't last for long.

If you're wondering why SP did not accompany her daughter on the talk shows, IMO it is because there have been so many recent ethics charges against SP she was afraid more would result from this effort.

I am so glad you are continuing this blog, Audrey - I was worried when I read the title!

Curious said...

And I'm curious, what exactly is a "Trig Palan Impact Award"?If you click on the picture of the "award," it takes you to a page that explains what it is.

Apparently, the people that are upset that Katie Couric won an award for her interview with SP think that Trig is the one that really made an impact and is the one that should be honored.

The page gives a choice of 2 different graphics and suggests putting them on your site with a link back to the page explaining what it's about so other people can find it and do the same.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Ms. Grass probably lacks credibility on this issue. It's clear from a very brief perusal of her page where her loyalties lie ;)

(In case that post gets disappeared by the author when she realizes the jig is up, here is a link. I'm not making it clickable on purpose:

Chi Town Mom said...

Trig Pain Impact Award? You have got to be kidding me! I thought it was an award in honor of Trig. No, it is an award TO Trig. Katie Couric and Al Gore, apparently, do not deserve to be rewarded for all the work they do. Trig does deserve an award, not for just being born, but having to survive the in the Palin family. This is from Mavericks4Palin:

"Dear Readers,

Recent news that Katie Couric received the Walter Cronkite National Impact Award for her interview with Governor Sarah Palin came as quite a shock to us for many reasons, but was sadly expected for others. (See "Related Links" below for more on this.) The audacity of honoring activity not worthy of honor instead of one who truly and profoundly impacted our culture for the better reminded us of when Al Gore knocked out Irena Sendler for the Nobel Prize in 2007.

We feel that the honor of "National Impact", particularly in the context of the 2008 election, must go to Trig Paxson Van Palin, the infant son of Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her husband Todd of Alaska, who, by his mere existence and without being able to utter one word, sent the mainstream media establishment reeling, thrust a national debate about children with disabilities to the forefront (particularly in the context of who among us is "worthy" of life) and dramatically impacted this debate for the better.

If you agree with us that Trig Palin is far more worthy of an award for National Impact in 2008 than any journalist, we encourage you to post the images below on your website and link it back to this page so that others might be informed and participate."

Chi Town Mom said...

Slightly off topic: Does anyone else find it weird that the other spokesperson for abstinence is a 19 year old girl who dated a 30 something actor for more than a year. Because we all know most 30 year old relatively famous actors with hot teenage girl friends firmly believe in abstinence. Just saying...

Anne said...

veebee: Great find! Once again, no baby belly, but another dopey, inappropriate windbreaker!

Lilybart said...

chiTownmom: not only was she dating a 30 year old, she is in the tabloids today talking about addiction and she said something to the effect that she would be addicted to sex.

Candies "foundation" is seriously f'ed up.

Chi Town Mom said...

Re the Gusty "Gutsy" photo: I was looking at how the carpet does not match up at all in the picture and couldn't figure something out. What is going on with the floor behind Sarah's butt? I just can't figure out what kind or how that could possibly be flooring. Honestly, can someone tell me what it is (if not BAD photoshop) because it is driving me crazy.

Lilybart said...

VEEBEE: Those photos with the orange windbreaker from the newsletter show her SO not pregnant. It says clearly the banquet was March 8th. Why would the newsletter be wrong?

Lilybart said...

VEEBEE: I looked at the other link with the Feb date. Weird. But even if it is FEB, her belly is TOO flat.

wayofpeace said...

re: latest photo of our girl at the Alaska Outdoor Council Awards Banquet

so, are we being asked to believe that SP was 7 months pregnant in that picture?

thanks veebee, the evidence is piling against the dike of denial: i hear it cracking; it will soon tumble!

which would be not only good for alaska and the nation BUT also for the palins: this just could be the 'bottom' that could open the whole family to help from family dysfunctions professionals.

Kathleen said...

This is how the scarf should have looked.

The photo that I have linked to is that of the model Jools Oliver and was taken five weeks before the birth of her third daughter, Petal Blossom Rainbow in April.

Chi Town Mom said...

That thing behind Sarah is a box...sorry. Time to get the reading specs checked.

ProChoiceGrandma said...

Hi veebee,
I could not pull up your link to the Alaska Journal of Commerce article.
I finally learned how to do the tinyurl. Go to this site and save it as a favorite:
It will come in useful! I think the columns on this blog are too narrow and frequently cuts off a long website. Could you tiny that site and post again? Thanks!

B said...

Audrey has discussed veebee's peach parka photo in a post, maybe one showing several more photos. Sorry I don't have time right now to search the blog for it, but I remember it.

Amy1 said...

ChiTownMom: We've been all over these Gusty photos. I sure have. I now think the photos are actual, genuine, unretouched photos of an event that was put together at midnight by SP with a possibly unknowing Gusty. The only fake part of these photos is the giant fake belly IMHO, which I now think only SP knew about -- or I should say I have found no data to indicate anyone else in this shoot knew the belly was fake.

The floor behind SP's butt? Are you talking about the boxes? I was all over those boxes, too. There is a vertical variation of color intensity -- the green text on box -- that looks like a photoshop discontinuity. I found the actual logo, and it does have that color discontinutity -- the text is darker in the middle.

The crooked dots on the carpet? Shifts and compromises in the carpet laying. Nothing to interest us there. The hall is not 90 degrees in that place, or there is some other oddity of angle in how the hallway bends, which explains adequately (to me) that the carpet layers had to make some compromises. Bear in mind that this is public building. The carpet was prob laid at different times, replaced (patched) when there was bad wear or damage, etc.

On the 3 Amigos, I was obsessed for awhile with the patch of confusing non-wall behind the left-most man's elbow, thinking it might have been something that was inadvertently photoshopped in when he was. Not so. Someone provided us with a GREAT video (the link is on this blog, somewhere back there) of that same hallway area, and I could see from it that the "confusing patch" was a whiteboard attached to the wall and barely showing in the 3Amigos photo.

So I would say we have looked these photos over exhaustively, hoping to find SP photoshopped into them. But we did not find that.

Andrea Gusty put up the 2nd video showing that the video taken at the time of these photos had actually aired. She adequately explained the existence of the photos. We have found no convincing photoshopping on them.

Gusty said in her 2nd video that she saw SP at this shoot really pregnant, and she saw her the several days later with her new baby. She says there was no deception. That's clearly her story and she's sticking to it, whatever her private ("reporter's instints") thoughts might be. I would do the same in her position. Even if she and SP winked at each other at some point, Gusty protects herself by maintaining a strong position of deniability.

Remaining weird items? The posting of the two photos by "Erik+zipcode," then their removal. Not a big deal to me at this point.

The one and only AMAZING piece of data that remains from the photos and video is the huge belly, which exists in its hugeness nowhere else (except hidden in the back of SP's closet at this very moment, I bet: I would burn it right now, SP. You don't have much time left!). Obviously, the only explanation is that it was strapped on. Because SP is shown in photos before and after with the waaaaay smaller belly.

Once again, I point with glee at the "shoot myself in the foot," "outclevering myself" aspect of this that we find in many mysteries, both fictional and real-life ones: the perp just HAS to gild the lily, make the (fake) evidence in his favor just a LITTLE bit stronger, and thus trips himself up.

In this case, the fact of "no pregnancy" would be just as true without this giant belly photo to support our position. But it would have been harder to prove, to document, if SP had decided to remain relatively small, consistently small, all during the pregnancy and there was no giant-belly photo at all. ("Appearing now! One day only!!" Dontcha just love it!?!)

But, no, she had to put this fake photo out there to "prove" she was like a ship with sails in full billow. And it is this very photo that supports our efforts.

The beauty of this issue (in contrast to the many ethics violation charges and Palin-gates) is: she either WAS PG or WAS NOT PG. There is no middle ground or "yeah, but, . . ." or extenuating circumstances. She either lied big-time or she didn't. This would be just as true without photos or any proof at all. But a lot harder to prove. But still true. And we know it's true. That's why we stick with it.

Just to say it again: easy to look PG when you are not, impossible to to look NOT PG when you are, and we have the new photo on the current chapter of the blog to prove it, as well as many others, like this tired old thing.

Audrey said...

I know we have addressed this elsewhere, but can't remember where. Through research, we came to believe that the date on the newsletter was a typo, and that orange windbreaker photo was from early February, NOT March.

However, it should be pointed out that even early in February, based on Palin's announced due date of mid May, she should have been around 25 weeks pregnant. More than far enough along to be showing with a fifth child. So while it is not quite as dramatic a find as if the photo had been from March, it is still significant.

ravenstrick said...

Something clicked in my brain this morning.

Isn't it interesting that Palin supporters refer to those who doubt her pregnancy as "Trig Truthers"? In doing so, they admit that what we've been told is not the truth, and that the "truth" is still being pursued.

Subconsciously (or consciously) they also know she faked it.

Ivyfree said...

"Remaining weird items? The posting of the two photos by "Erik+zipcode," then their removal. Not a big deal to me at this point."

It kind of reminds me of the Dan Rather thing- when he reported on G. Bush's military career. The information was actually faxed from the White House, and discussion focused on typefonts and so forth. Nobody stopped to say: but the information is correct, except one brave woman who had been the commanding officer's secretary.

We can get tied up in the whole Gusty photo thing, but the underlying truth is that Palin did not give birth to Trig. Everything else is obfuscation. Palin did not give birth to Trig, there is no evidence, let alone proof, that she did, and she has never said she did. (No, she hasn't. She's said she's his mother, not how she got that way.)

And given that she was fine with announcing Bristols (second?Probably) pregnancy, it wasn't to protect her reputation or anything. What could be bad enough, or venal enough, for SP to pretend? Gods, I really, really hope that Willow writes a book someday.

Amy1 said...

Ivyfree: Yes, SP DID say in the Ziegler video at 0:20:

". . . . my own pregnancy, having given birth to Trig 4 months prior, . . . ."

But she did not say it until then, way after the election, as far as I know.

Amy1 said...

Ivyfree: Yes, I agree, the Dan Rather case is very germane here. Dan's position (and his on-going suit, I believe) remains that the info was true. I believe him.

But clearly CBS was intimidated enough by someone or some forces to recant. To withdraw support from Rather. CBS! CBS!!! Is your jaw dropped down as far as mine is??? Even now, I am still truly shocked.

This incident goes a long to way to explaining why the MSM is so shy on this SP issue. Not that it's not true, not that they don't have all the info readily at hand, but that THEY BELIEVE there are strong forces that are ready to retaliate, rebut, or fix in some way this little problem with one of their star charming charismatic contenders.

midnightcajun said...

Chi Town Mom said,"Trig Pain Impact Award? You have got to be kidding me! I thought it was an award in honor of Trig. No, it is an award TO Trig."

Ah, you're braver than I! I followed the link to the Mavericks4Palin website, rolled my eyes, and backed away. Seriously, how many of these Palinbot sites are there?

In fact, if you can stomach spending time on any of these sites (I'm actually a proud member of TeamSarah--those people are scary), you'll be reminded why it's so important that we succeed in helping to expose this farce. Poor Trig; his life is going to be hard enough without his grandmother telling lies about his birth and using him as both a prop and a boon for her political ambitions. And what she would do with those political ambitions is truly frightening.

jeanette said...

I haven't seen this picture before and it certainly isn't major since Sarah is sitting. However, she is leaning into the table in a way that might be uncomfortable or not possible for woman who gives birth about six months later.

B said...

Audrey's post dating the peach parka photos to February 2008:

Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Some New Photos to Discuss - Part One

MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel said...

Thanks, veebee, for those pix of SP with the outdoorsy Alaskans. She is wearing an apricot satiny windbreaker neatly snapped at HIP LEVEL and zipped over a perfectly flat belly. The pix were snapped by one Don Stapleton. Would that be Megaphone Meg's brother? Husband? Son?

WV: satin!

Puck said...

I haven't seen this photo on here before: it shows Sarah Palin with Sean Parnell in, apparently February 2008:

Similar outfit to the other outdoor photos. It's not spectacularly conclusive because it's cropped above the belly, but really: shouldn't that coat be bunched up above a pregnant belly? Shouldn't the zippers of the coat be flaring out over a tummy at the bottom of the picture? Should the rolled-up whatever (magazine?) in her hand really be lying so flat? You can distinguish the line of the coat from the line of the magazine and black gloves in her left hand, and folks, there simply is no baby under there! The date of course needs to be authenticated, but I think it's worth pointing at as one more "looking not pregnant when she is" photo!!

(AP claims the photo is from "2 months ago". I'd hustle over there and grab it quick before it gets "scrubbed" like so much of the other media from that time period...)

MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel said...

oh, harsh! And it's not even ME this time: TIME magazine has a photo gallery of pictures of Levi and Bristol. Next to the photo of blooming BP at the RNC is the ubiquitous ad: 10 RULES FOR A FLAT STOMACH!

Pat in Branson said...

I think I just saw the absolute proof that the Gusty photo was fixed. When previous blogger mentioned the mismatched carpet in the picture, I went back and looked. Behind Sarahs feet the dots on the carpet absolutely do not match. LOOK AT IT. There is a partial dot that doesn't line up and the space between the lines of dots doesn't match. Audrey could you do one of your great analysis on this picture concentrating on that floor. It HAS to be pieced together.

Amy1 said...

Did anyone see who the agent for the possible book deal for SP was? I never saw a specific name or an agency.

LondonBridges said...

Here is an article about the Palin soap opera on Buzzflash:

wayofpeace said...


Bristol Palin has clearly become a soap opera star. She has the beauty of her mother but with a shy charm all her own.

The rumors of a previous pregnancy. The mysterious bout with mono and living with her aunt in Anchorage.

The boyfriend who didn't want kids, though that info magically disappeared.

The questions about whether or if she would finish her education.

wv: deckit

Amy1 said...

PatInBranson: So just for the sake of argument, what if SP was in fact photoshopped into that photo. So what? Since we already looked endlessly at that photo and found NO photoshopping, I'd say that ship has sailed.

But again, what if SP was photoshopped into the photo. It's not illegal to do that. What advantage does she or anyone else get from that? We were all over those photos before because we didn't know WHAT anything meant at that time. At this time, it seems just impossible to conclude anything else but a strapped on belly in that photo, photoshopped or not. And the strapped on belly does not do SP any favors, since she was way smaller, flatter in photos taken in the days before and the days after.

Kathleen said...


Thanks for the link to Chad Rubel's article re the Palin Family Soap Opera imbroglio.

Chad Rubel is actually one of the Managing Editors of Buzzflash

and I find it most interesting that he has this to say about Bristol:

"Bristol Palin has clearly become a soap opera star. She has the beauty of her mother but with a shy charm all her own. The rumors of a previous pregnancy. The mysterious bout with mono and living with her aunt in Anchorage. The boyfriend who didn't want kids, though that info magically disappeared. The questions about whether or if she would finish her education."

I'm sure that he would welcome comments from the readers here on his article, don't you?

B said...

London Bridges, notice the erroneous caption on the Sept. 2007 photo at buzzflash:

The cast of "All My Palins" in happier times from Christmas 2007.

B said...

Pat in Branson said...
I think I just saw the absolute proof that the Gusty photo was fixed. When previous blogger mentioned the mismatched carpet in the picture, I went back and looked. Behind Sarahs feet the dots on the carpet absolutely do not match. LOOK AT IT. There is a partial dot that doesn't line up and the space between the lines of dots doesn't match. ***

Where to begin . . .

If you look at the second Gusty photo, that she released in defense of herself, you'll see that there is a seam in the carpet.

Sarah's missing necklace (see Three Amigos and photos from the lege that day) and the pixels on her neck are still unexplained.

All of this -- and more -- was explored and discussed at length months ago, when Audrey hired an expert. We didn't have the second Gusty photo then to see the halls intersecting and the carpet not matching.

LisanTX said...

LondonBridges--Thanks for the link to the article "All My Palins." It was hilarious. The author mentioned quite a few of the "rumors" about various family members. I think he did his homework!

The tenor of Palin articles is changing. The latest Enquirer article was not flattering.

Jen said...

Pat in Branson said...

I think I just saw the absolute proof that the Gusty photo was fixed. When previous blogger mentioned the mismatched carpet in the picture, I went back and looked. Behind Sarahs feet the dots on the carpet absolutely do not match. LOOK AT IT. There is a partial dot that doesn't line up and the space between the lines of dots doesn't match. Audrey could you do one of your great analysis on this picture concentrating on that floor. It HAS to be pieced together.

May 8, 2009 12:53 PM


To all discussing the gusty photos and the floor, let me tell you this.

I had studied those pictures and every single picture and video of those hallways dating back years and have many many collages of them as part of the earlier investigation into the validity of the 4/13 pics -- i can tell you without a doubt that there is nothing up with the carpet -- it is the way the carpet is laid -- the hallways are very weird and have weird angles and many times the carpet angle is half in the hallway and half in an office. yes, the carpet does not line up in the photos, but that is because, it doesn't.

trust me on this -- nobody has looked at these pics more than I and while there are very weird things in them, they were due to weird hallway angles, weird carpet angles and low photo resolution.

nobody wished for those photos to be faked more than I after the endless hours I spent on them -- but it was just not to be.

the matter of whether it was 'staged' or 'the pregnancy belly' was part of the ruse is a different matter, but the environment is as described/visualized in the 4/13 pics.

Ivyfree said...

"Yes, SP DID say in the Ziegler video at 0:20:

". . . . my own pregnancy, having given birth to Trig 4 months prior"

Thank you for pointing out that video. Interesting that she still didn't say "I gave birth to him," she said, "My own pregnancy, having given birth to Trig.." She just won't say "I gave birth to him." I wonder if that is significant or if it's her usual incoherence.

Morgan said...


Please make sure your links work and/or go to the page you're trying to specify before you post your comment.

Thanks for your cooperation.

B said...

Amy1, I Googled for Sarah's book deal and found a couple of stories saying her agent is the same as Obama's and Clintons’ book agent:

"With Washington attorney Robert Barnett, a top literary agent backing her bid to ink a profitable book contract with a major publishing house in New York . . . "

Pat in Branson said...

OK, I guess I got too excited. When a previous blogger mentioned the carpet and, having followed this for a long time and not remembering that specific item being addressed, I just really thought it was a good bet it was staged. Someone said "so, what if it was..." well, why stage something like that, or photo shop it if you were not trying to prove something that wasn't really true. I'll calm down now

LisanTX said...

Here is a comment on a CNN Political Ticker story on Todd taking SP's place in Washington this weekend:

Wasilla Cowgirl May 8th, 2009 6:14 pm ET

If the MSM would seriously investigate, they would find there is more to this. SP is doing preDamage control (Bristol too) before the truth comes out about Bristols first baby. Hint-this is the2nd and it's a sad, sordid story.

I think the truth will come out soon.....

midnightcajun said...

Amy1 asked, "Did anyone see who the agent for the possible book deal for SP was? I never saw a specific name or an agency."

I remember seeing William Morris's name mentioned. They're a huge agency, very high-powered (I used to be with them myself), but I don't know if they actually represent her of if it was just a rumor. I think there was someone in DC who was mentioned later, but it wasn't a name I'm familiar with.

Here's a funny inside story for you all that I've been having a quiet chuckle over for months: You know how Sarah's reps are always bragging about all the calls they get wanting her to do stuff? The one they never fail to mention is that she even had "someone from Hollywood wanting to have her host a daytime talk show!" Well, right after the elections, a friend of mine whose husband is a big Hollywood TV producer (Jewish, and very liberal) told me he called Palin's office to see if she'd be interested in hosting a daytime talk how. His sole motivation was to get her OUT of politics because people like her scares him (he lost family members to the Holocaust). So now the next time you hear--or see--that little gem, you can have a quiet chuckle, too

pearlygirl said...

I'm sure that many of you have heard that Sarah has just backed out of attending the White House Correspondent's Dinner. She had been the invited guest of Fox News of course. (the first Dude will be taking her place to promote Alaska seafood)She's claiming that she needs to attend to flooding in Alaska. Considering that she didn't seem to care about people starving/freezing to death over the winter, I find her new found compassion out of character. Didn't someone say that our boy Andrew Sullivan was planning on attending? I didn't see him listed on the published guest list but perhaps I only saw a draft or early copy. Just curious.

By the way, Audrey you are wonderful. The picture is such a fantastic find. I was worried about the title "enough is enough." I too thought that you were giving up. I am proud that you, your dedicated fellow researchers and my fellow pajama-clad, tin-foil hat buddies are staying with this.

Lisa Graas said...

Of course people are pretty easy to look up on the web when they INTENTIONALLY link their REAL NAME to their blog. Hello??? I'm not trying to hide anything and appreciate your visits to my site. As I said, I have been pregnant five times. The fifth time, I was no larger than Sarah Palin was. I see no difference between the two photos that cannot be explained by the fact that the two outfits are so different. One is more form-fitting than the other is. You people remind me of the people who keep insisting that Barack Obama is a Muslim. It's not true. Get over it and move on with your lives. The reason the mainstream media is not reporting on this "conspiracy" is the same reason they aren't reporting on whether or not Obama is a Muslim and that reason is IT IS NOT TRUE. What you sadly do not seem to realize is that without even intending to do so, Sarah Palin is controlling your lives. Do something positive with yourselves, for goodness sake.

The Editor said...

I think that the Alaska Outdoor Council picture is the best example so far of the non-pregnancy of SP. Her windbreaker is even zipped up, something no pregnant woman would be able to do as the bottom band is usually tighter than the rest. It was flat against her flat stomach. If the picture was taken anywhere between January and April, she could not have been able to wear it zipped up.
WV achurce. As in: Thank goodness we had a churce not to vote for Palin in 2008.

Amy1 said...

So here's Barnett's resume, and the third paragraph indicates that he serves as literary agent to the v famous.

Lisa Graas: I'd appreciate your comments on this graphic -- how does this fit with your view that SP was actually pregnant with Trig? And please feel welcome to this blog -- we all benefit from having participants with diverse views.

MidnightCajun: Good to hear I'm not the only one who sees Hitler and echoes of what led to WWII in all this. If you can get a message to that fancy H'wood TV producer again, please tell him that non-rich though I may be, I will chip in to finance the switch of SP to daytime TV. It IS a good story. Thx.

tasha said...

Lisa Grass - Thank you for your input (I mean that). Have you seen the picture on this blog that was lightened to show a square pillow as a pregnant belly? If so, can you offer an opinion on that?

tasha said...

Lisa Grass: I know Sarah does not owe us any proof, but since nearly all of us would shut up if she produced a birth certificate or a picture of herself in the hospital bed with her newborn or a signed doctor's statement that he/she delivered Trig and Sarah is his biological mom - why wouldn't she do this to shut up the skeptics? One more question: Do you think it was prudent to fly for so many hours (passing a hospital with a modern neo-natal unit) AFTER leaking fluid in Texas and knowing her baby was special needs? Thank you again for your thoughts.

lisabeth said...

Ms Grass, I have a few questions for you. Why are you so sure that the rumors about Gov Palin not being Trigs mother are false? What do you think of her own story where she flew all the way back to Alaska knowing she was having a high risk baby and she says she had a leaking placenta. I would really appreciate hearing your reasoning. You are a mother of 5. Would you fly 10-12 hours in your 9th month knowing you were carrying a special needs baby with possible birth complications? And if your placenta was leaking would you go to the ER. Or would you give a speech and then fly 12 hours(a guess) home. You are over 40. If you were pregnant with a DS baby would you have a ob-gyn deliver your baby or a special needs baby.

I ask you these things because the are just a fewgthings that make people question the governors truthfulness.

Finally, if it did come out that Trig was not Sarahs son and she lies let's say to protect someone, would you feel differently about her or not at all.

Thank you in advance for answering. My questions are sincere and maybe it would help.

Bretta said...

MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel said...
"""The pix were snapped by one Don Stapleton. Would that be Megaphone Meg's brother? Husband? Son?"""

Meghan Stapleton's husband's name is Eric Steenburgh. She only has pne child, daughter Isobel, born in August 2007 - about the time I thought SP conceived (back before I came to believe that she did not carry TriG).

Not sure at the moment about who Don Stapleton is.

Punkinbugg said...

OK Lisa,

I just gotta follow through on that last one.

How does this sound:

In March 2008, Barack Obama calls a press conference and just casually mentions that he is a Christian, and he's going to be baptized in April or May. When he announces this juicy bit of news, his staff and the local Chicago news media are "stunned" and "shocked" and look at each other, thinking we know you'd gone forward for an altar call at least four other times in your life, but we're really surprised that you're just now getting baptized. We had no idea you were even going to church...?

Then the buzzing begins. Wonder if, instead of HIS getting baptized, one of his little GIRLS is really the one who's gonna get dunked in April or May. Yeah -- ya know -- I heard she kinda disappeared right around Christmas 2007, then by spring, she turns up again - just in time for the Easter Egg Hunt.

But this is even stranger: One day in April, he gets word from on High that instead of a MAY baptism, he needs to take the holy plunge, and he needs to do it NOW. Problem is, he's in Texas. In DALLAS TEXAS. Buckle-of-the-Bible-Belt Dallas Texas. Instead of stopping at the 2 or 3,000 churches fitted with temperature-controlled baptistries, suitable for congregants of ALL ages, he trots out to DFW and gets on a plane to Seattle, Washington. Then he gets on another plane to Anchorage, Alaska. Then he drives past another couple of dozen just-as-equipped churches in the greater Anchorage area out to Palmer, Alaska and gets baptized in a kiddie pool. And he's 6'4"!!

So the 'baptism' happens, but no pictures or certificates are ever produced. "Just take my word for it", says he. And we do.

But this is strange -- When he starts pulling ahead and locking up the nomination in 2008, alllll those official pictures of him visiting churches & singing hymns prior to his baptism are suddenly SCRUBBED from the Illinois State Website. Why?

And now we find a whole bunch of random pictures of him from early 2008. One at a snowmachine potluck, another at an Outdoor Sportsman Bible Study, and yet another at a Frontiersman Fellowship, at which he CLEARLY looks as though he's got a large, square copy of the Koran stuffed up his orange windbreaker... what's up with that?

And all we want to know is: Did Barack Hussein Obama get baptized by Pastor Carl Baldwin-Johnson at the Mat-Su Church of Christ on April 18, 2008?

Surely there is an official record of this memorable event!?

And all he has to do is show us that very record and say six little words, "Here ya go. Now go away."

Which we will do, Sarah.


Eileen said...

Dear Folks, I mailed prints of this photo and emailed from a CD various shots of this framed photo to Audrey. Some have flash glare. Maybe I will take more shots. Using a film camera and have to mail out for development. Live off the road system in Alaska.
For one year, I and a couple hundred others have been aware of this publically displayed photo. It was also displayed in a private social network site my neighbors use, I first saw it there April 2008 after folks in town were commenting on our students running into the Governor. At the time I typed in funny comments to the boys who went on a school trip while the legislature was in session and came back with a cool momento(photo) that only they were lucky to get. Bonus for taking the stairs.
This was before she was chosen as Veep candidate. This was before all the controversies,
microscoptic-late (never done during Gov. campaign by statewide press)vetting, or the way the Republican V.P. candidate chose to conduct her campaign against Obama.
Perhaps Christmastime, I came upon Audrey's Palin Deception link. I already had it with factual inconsistencies and hypocritical statements on so many subjects-troopergate, ethicsgate, No to
bridge to nowheregate, appoint Wasilla croniesgate etc. She wasn't a "out of the box" Republican official in Alaska to me anymore. She was the epicenter of doublespeak and cover-up here.
I thought the WATERbroke-gate flight to get out of Texas so "her" child wouldn't have to endure not being born in Alaska was bogus.
I had not given much thought to the national headlines about the preggers daughter during the Sept. to Nov. period. My gut impressions told me otherwise.
For a long time I wanted to send Audrey-whom I do not know except via this site- this photo. I am a Alaskan parent of students in this school.
I know the students, the parents, the Principal who wrote the March 2008 school newsletter announcing the Juneau trip (original found and mailed to Audrey), I took the photo of the framed photo.
The husky boy on her right is then in Tenth and wearing a fully zipped medium parka. The more slender eleventh grade boy on her left has his parka almost unzipped. He has a ID badge blocked. Audrey could make the oval circles smaller with my permission.
I definitely know the time period that these kids were in Juneau-April 7 to 11, 2008. Because of our remote location, they have to take several planes so I believe they left and returned during the weekends. Also, when a teacher in a small school chaperones a field trip far away-this is a big deal for the village and someone has to cover the bases when staff is gone.

I only recently was able to find proof of the time period from two sources of my own possession that I told Audrey this week and mailed her my found proof. I already knew roughly when the trip was because of a Spring Carnival we hold here. I tend to have too much paper clutter and in Spring Cleaning I found the school newletter.

It was an accident that they met her in the staircase. The photo was taken and posted in April 2008 on a locally used family site. Since my family has a membership in this photo site, I have searched many albums to find this photo over the past five months. I should have kept a hard drive copy but I had no idea that it was significant until I read this P.D. site. We would have a better photo to view.
I am still looking at other sources including the photographer, but in a way I am in non-political awareness country-can't say the village is Palin country since to my surprise Obama edged her out in Nov.
I guess I am timid about the right way to approach the folks who do have a direct photo/digital original source. Until tonight, I didn't know if Audrey or others would find anything of real use from this somewhat dark photo. Now, I understand as well. The entire idea of someone pretending to be pregnant or denying they are or denying paternity or rumoring about someone's paternity is appalling to me. So guess I have to find a way to show the significance of this photo to those directly involved without sounding like a JFK Conspiracy nut type.
A toddler is nagging me, gotta go, bless you to all those who had faith in Audrey and friend's hard work. Truth will set you free (hear that Levi, Bristol and Wasilla). Don't mess with mommas who take their responsibility seriously-not treating their kids as photo props, potato sacks etc.

Bretta said...

Jen said...

"""...i can tell you without a doubt that there is nothing up with the carpet -- it is the way the carpet is laid -- the hallways are very weird and have weird angles and many times the carpet angle is half in the hallway and half in an office. yes, the carpet does not line up in the photos, but that is because, it doesn't.
trust me on this...there are very weird things in them, they were due to weird hallway angles, weird carpet angles and low photo resolution.
...but the environment is as described/visualized in the 4/13 pics. May 8, 2009 5:54 PM"""

I have to agree; it is sad to say but building codes in Alaska only began to conform in the last 15 to 20 years to what others in the USA may think of as 'standard' --

there are many buildings here where you can walk in and actually see the shoddy work. Still.

muah said...

Lisa Graas, Could you be a little more specific? How old were you with your fifth pregnancy?

Is this March 26, 2008 photo one that you are referring to?
April 13th, 2008

The first photo is among the most convincing for me. I just don't see how she was pregnant on March 26, 2008. Please convince me.

Your blog is interesting and you put a lot into it. Would you post these two photos with your perspective and explanation of how she went from flat to the April 13, 2008 pregnant look? You could use whatever you are willing to share about your experience. Photos are most helpful.

CasaCalvo said...

Well I believe this blog is serving a good purpose, for goodness sake. The idea of holding our public officals accountable to the people is a long standing and proud tradition in this country.

Bretta said...

pearlygirl said...
"""I'm sure that many of you have heard that Sarah has just backed out of attending the White House Correspondent's Dinner. She had been the invited guest of Fox News... (the first Dude will be taking her place to promote Alaska seafood). She's claiming that she needs to attend to flooding in Alaska... I find her new found compassion out of character. May 8, 2009 8:26 PM"""

SP has received a great deal of recent criticism for not attending to the needs of the State of Alaska because she is putting her national political agenda first.

So IMO she is not being so much compassionate as trying to develop her agenda as a leader.

Bretta said...

Lisa Graas said...
"""Sarah Palin is controlling your lives. Do something positive with yourselves, for goodness sake. May 8, 2009 8:29 PM"""

SP is the Governor of my state: she does control my life to a certain extent. It is my opinion that she has performed poorly on a number of issues and has caused me embarrassment as well as to severely question her competence.

This is just one front where issues need to be resolved. The name of this website is "Palin's Deceptions" therefore any evidence the people can put forward to demonstrate her deceptions is fair.

A primary argument here is that SP did not carry a fifth pregnancy; the preponderance of evidence (mostly photographic) is in favor of that argument.

I do not consider the discussion or it's genesis to be a 'conspiracy' as you say. People see a set of discrepancies but are not willing to overlook them just because the perpetrator generates a great deal of charm and beauty.

wv: conatise = con artist

Palin Pregnancy Truth said...

Lisa Graas,

The main stream media DID report that Obama is a Muslim.

Even if it was just reported as rumor, it was still reported on and investigated. Why can't they do the same for Sarah?

Why is Trig off limits if Sarah is using tax payer money to dedicate a State webpage to him? If he has his own page on Alaska's government website I think we should be able to ask who his real mother is.

rpinME said...

Lisa Graas

Actually--it's the same jacket in both photographs, simply dressed up with different lapel pins. It's the one jacket she appears to wear throughout the short duration of her "pregnancy."

Morgan said...


I should not have to do this, but let me remind you all again that this blog is not meant to be an echo chamber. We might not believe Sarah Palin, but those who do are *welcome* to come here and state their views. Question them all you like, but if you don't do it civilly then your comments will get dumped.

Truthseeker2 said...

Thanks to Eileen -- you are making an important contribution to this investigation, and we all appreciate it!

wayofpeace said...

EILLEN, a huge THANKS for the picture and the additional details:

"I definitely know the time period that these kids were in Juneau-April 7 to 11, 2008."

WOW, the date for this new image exposes the GUSTY photo as the hoax that it is, and the subsequent birth a week or so later ridiculously impossible.

Punkinbugg said...

Wow Eileen,

Thanks for your courage. Have you spoken with the two boys personally?

Would they know what a woman who's about to "domino" look like?

Lisa Graas said...

On mainstream news reporting comparing whether or not Obama is a Muslim (I affirm he is not) and this issue about Trig, I didn't say the mainstream media has been completely DEVOID of coverage. Of course you can find some coverage, but I submit you can find at least as much coverage about the issue of Palin's pregnancy with Trig, if not more. If you think the ADN is biased in favor of Palin, you have another thing coming and I consider the ADN to be "mainstream media" they are in Anchorage.

On the two photos linked, I say this with all honesty as someone who has given birth to four babies (I lost my first child to miscarriage so I have had five pregnancies) that the two photos are ABSOLUTELY consistent. When I would bend over like Palin is in the photo strangely captioned "nails in the coffin", my belly would look exactly like hers did. When I was standing straight up and wearing something that is not form-fitting, I looked pregnant, but if I were wearing something not form-fitting, it was hard for people to see I was actually pregnant as opposed to just being plump. I had my last child in 2008 and today I look more pregnant than I did when I was nine months along with my fifth child. In short, the pictures only prove to me that Palin, during her fifth pregnancy, looked EXACTLY LIKE I DID when I was pregnant with my fifth.

Furthermore, the whole reason Trig HIMSELF is special is that he HIMSELF survived gestation for nine months, regardless of who his mother is. Ninety percent of DS babies are aborted.

On the issue of records, it's my understanding that she did release her medical records and even if she didn't release his birth certificate, in this day of photo shopping, what would it prove if she did? NOTHING!

I have to laugh at all the criticism of her giving that speech while in labor. As a Catholic with Catholic friends, I know moms who've had lots of children and know they would agree, after you become experienced with having babies, you don't really freak out anymore over the possibility that you might give birth somewhere other than a hospital.....and you don't flip out when you are in early labor. IN ALL HONESTY, I would have done the same thing in her position with my fifth child. Had it been my first child, no way, I would have wanted to go immediately to the nearest hospital because I was ignorant and unexperienced and I just know that's what I would have done, but not with my fifth. I would have done EXACTLY what Sarah Palin did.

Lilybart said...

Lisa, she did NOT release her medical records. There was a one-page letter from Johnson, a summary of her care. NOT any kind of actual medical record.

Lisa Graas said...

To the person who said it's the same jacket, if that's true, how did the sleeves "grow" in length? Please. The second one is clearly larger.

I don't think I'm going to comment any further. I have addressed everything I could find except for the very lengthy comment about baptism which was, frankly, quite confusing to me and seemingly irrelevant.

Truly, though, I do think you all are wasting valuable time on this. If you honestly think that your claims are true and relevant, by all means, continue. That is your right.....but in my humble opinion, you're wasting time.

Also, please be careful in how you present your case. It is a violation of the eighth commandment to intentionally destroy someone's reputation for the sake of destroying their reputation. I don't see much of that going on here. I think you all do believe you are correct about this and that this is relevant. I think you are legitimately trying to be fair and I have to give you credit for that......but some of you *sometimes* fail by being less than fair. Sincere disagreement on the evidence (and I use that term lightly) is one thing, but to vilify someone is another.

Many blessings to you all.

Tully said...

Lisa Graas -- How about posting some pictures of yourself when 7 or 8 monts pregnant with your fifth child?

Lisa Graas and other SP supporters -- What do you think is our motivation for continuing to blog on this site? Why have Audrey and her research team worked so tirelessly to try to prove that SP did not give birth to Trig? Okay, I'll answer that question for you. Most of us want to see SP's political career come to an end. That said, if we were going to make something up to damage SP politically, why would we choose a false pregnancy??

It is nearly impossible to prove something in the negative. On the other hand, it would be very easy for the Palin camp to prove that Sarah gave birth to TRig on 4-18-08, if she had.

There's just no reason for anyone to make up this story and to keep it alive for so many months, when it could be so easily refuted. But, so far there is only a shady photo and a shaky letter.

In this case, truth really is stranger than fiction.

So, Palinites, open your eyes to the truth. Maybe, it won't matter to you that Sarah did not give birth to Trig. But, what else has she lied to you about?? Does she deserve your support and trust? I think not. Find another hero.

NakedTruth said...

Lisa Graas,

Since your 5th pregnancy was recently, 2008, I am sure you would have some pictures of this pregnancy to share with us. Please share. I would love to see this with my own eyes.

I have had two pregnancies-one at 29 years old and the other at 32 and both times I looked pregnant around 20 weeks regardless of what I was wearing. I showed earlier than 20 weeks on my second one and was huge at 7 - 8 months. I was 5'4" about 123 lbs or so then. Last one was in 2000 and I still have pictures to show.

I am not sure if your pregnancies were the same but most women pregnancy bump patterns get consistently bigger. Unlike Sarah's who we show was very visibly pregnant with her 1st and 4th (Track and Piper) but flat as a board with Trig. This is possible but definitely not consistent with most women. Please share your pictures.

Ann said...

Wow, well I have five children and I think what you are saying Lisa frankly is nonsense! If I was in my forties which I am, and I got pregnant again and had amniocentesis and found out I had a DS baby, I would first of all have an ob/gyn, NOT a family practice doctor that specializes in incest and child abuse deliver my baby. AND I would go to the emergency room right away if my amniotic fluid was leaking.

I am sorry, and I do not mean to be rude (honestly) but your comments simply show how deep your denial is. I don't want to attack you since you had the courtesy to answer peoples questions, but I seriously wonder why you are so enamored with Sarah Palin that you can not even be objective about a single thing she may have done wrong. If you truly were a reasonable person, and not brainwashed, you would have at least mentioned one or two things you would have done differently. Because of this , it is impossible to take any of your comments seriously.

Finally, the statistic that 90% of Downs Syndrome babies are aborted is not factual. I am not sure where you are getting your information because there is no statistic like that. I work with Downs Syndrome children and I am a nurse, and let me tell you something else, the births can be highly complicated, the babies can have heart and other problems. You talk about your own deliveries as if they were nothing, but you did not have a pregnancy with a special needs baby, did you? To fly like that with a leaking placenta to a place that had very bad facilities, was completely irresponsible and I can't honestly believe that as a mother you would really think that is ok.

It is nice that you come here to defend Sarah. But be a bit realistic or no one will take you seriously. Try being honest, my goodness you are blind!

By the way, comparing this to President Obama is like comparing apples and oranges. And you are wrong, if she did produce evidence, then people might believe her.

I do not believe Sarah Palin. I believe the baby is not hers and she faked the pregnancy. I live in the area and I know what was going on during the time. Do you? Have you met her? Probably not.
And as someone else said to you, she does effect all of our lives, she is a phony, a liar and a hypocrite. If you do not live here, please do not come and attack our right to question someone who had had and continues to have a negative effect on our lives. And as long as Palin even thinks she is capable of being president, I and many others will continue to speak the truth about her, and we will not be silenced. And when this does come out, which it will, I bet you will still be making excuses for her which is very sad.

This is why your party is down to 21% of registrants in this country. Denial and dishonesty.

tasha said...

Lisa Grass - This statement has me confused: "As a Catholic with Catholic friends, I know moms who've had lots of children and know they would agree, after you become experienced with having babies, you don't really freak out anymore over the possibility that you might give birth somewhere other than a hospital.....' Really? No problem to give birth to a ds baby on a airplane? I find that a bit horrifying on behalf of Trig. And this: "In short, the pictures only prove to me that Palin, during her fifth pregnancy, looked EXACTLY LIKE I DID when I was pregnant with my fifth." Your baby was "square?" He/she was not rounded, but looked like spongebob squarepants?

Ohio mom said...

Lisa Graas, one quick question: in any of your 5 pregnancies did you experience premature rupture of membranes at seven months or earier?

I did, at six months, and I know what a big deal it was to my OB. If I had called him and told him what was happening, then flown for 12 hours and driven for two all the while bypassing hospitals, he assures me that he would no longer be my OB/GYN.

I'm not Catholic, but I have heard of something called a Catholic abortion, where the mom takes life-altering risks with her pregnancy, knowing that if she loses the baby, it is what God wanted. When I first heard about Sarah's wild plane ride, I assumed she was trying to lose the baby.

Other than Sarah not being pregnant at all, trying for a miscarriage is the only thing that makes sense to me. And I refuse to believe that any reputable doctor would have given her blessing to the wild ride.

Your comments about mothers with lots of children knowing more than doctors almost sounds like you are saying, I already have lots of kids, so it's not necessary for me to take care of each pregnancy as if it were my first. Maybe that works for you, but it doesn't work for me.

Patrick said...

I feel that finally we are edging towards a solution to this puzzle that we have been trying to put together for months now.

I would like to say a big THANK YOU to our reader "Ghostbuster", because she was the one who had found the new, previously undiscovered agency pictures on photoshelter etc. which show the Palin family on 14th September 2007. This was an amazing find.

And then Mary, who is a highly active member of our team, found the PDF with the article from December 2007 which included the official Christmas picture for 2007, which was taken on 14th September. Mary was digging very deep to find this article. :-)

Why was the official Christmas photo for 2007 published in this article, and apparently nowhere else? I think that it's possible that this was caused by a mistake made by the Governor's office - bad for Sarah, good for us.

Let there be no mistake: Bristol is the mother of Trig. This is not an assumption. Additional research and conversations confirmed it, too. This is a fact. All the evidence is in front of us. (however, let me please include the disclaimer that this is only my personal opinion!)

I am personally convinced that the McCains know the truth, too, and that they were appalled when they found out. I think that this is ultimately the reason why Meghan McCain

- strictly refuses for months now to say anything about Sarah or her family

and John McCain

- doesn't include Sarah in the list of future "GOP stars" - see his already famous quote on Jay Leno: "And I've left out somebody's name, and I'm gonna hear about it."

The truth will come out, even if the MSM still doesn't want to "believe" it - hey all you investigative journalists, where are you? Is there still anybody left who actually "investigates" matters? Or is it all just a "show" these days?

Patrick (PD research)

rpinME said...

Lisa Graas--

The sleeves have not "grown" from one picture to the other. In the Gusty picture, she has them rolled up, something that is readily seen if you click on the photo & enlarge it.

Lynn said...

Hi Lisa,
I appreciate your attempt to protect your heroine. I can understand the people who think she's wonderful. She looks so good and is so perky. But in order to do that you have to ignore a lot of reality. I personally take any politician or other bigger than life figure with a grain of salt. I didn't want to believe my Republican mother in NC when she told me negative background stories about John Edwards. These stories weren't nearly as bad as what eventually came out--more like being rude to neighbors--but I resisted because I wanted to like the guy and I wanted him to be all the things he said he was. It's really disappointing to find out otherwise but still, it's a good thing. We need to know about the character of the people we are putting into power. Nobody's perfect but some flaws are worse than others. So, I think, most of the people on this site feel strongly that the image that Sarah Palin is energetically projecting about herself is false. False on a bold, colossal scale and therefore she would not be a good national leader due to the vulnerabilities from her lies and her tendency to lie to the point of even unnecessary lying. So we've latched onto one of her core lies and we've persevered. Thank you for the courtesy of recognizing that we try to be fair. Btw, you do know her religious groups attitude towards Catholics?

Amy1 said...

Lisa Graas: Thank you for your posts. I appreciate them. Whether or not you choose to share your photos, I was very interested in your thoughts.

By the way, in case you decide NOT to share photos of yourself, just want you to know that I would not, either. This issue must be decided on its own merits, not on comparisions with one or another person's pregnancy size.

This issue for me is not comparison on one issue (like size) with my own experience but an absence of almost all of the characteristics I associated with my pregnancy in what I saw in the SP case. The photos seem to sum it all up and do seem convincing to me, but as we have seen, we clearly need some more conclusive proof to establish our case.

You sound very credible to me, and I know that pregnancies, like people, come in all shapes and sizes.

I hope you will stay with us and continue to comment, even though we can be a pretty rowdy and demanding bunch at times. But I truly welcome your participation because we all do better when we have a wide range of viewpoints.

Ivyfree said...

Eileen: Thank you for sending the picture in to Audrey. There is simply no way she is pregnant in this picture, and along with Kathleen's photo showing how the scarf should look- I consider it another nail-in-the-coffin.

Lisa:"if I were wearing something not form-fitting, it was hard for people to see I was actually pregnant as opposed to just being plump. I had my last child in 2008 and today I look more pregnant than I did when I was nine months along with my fifth child."

It sounds to me like you put on weight all over your body. In that case, the weight would mask the belly. Have you read the discussions here about people whose pregnancies don't show much? Typically, overweight people "hide" a pregnancy more easily as people think the burgeoning belly is just more fat. Not putting you down- I gained all over with my first pregnancy, but even so, I was into maternity wear at the end of my second month. If you look at the photos of Palin, however, she did not gain much weight all over, as cam easily be seen- for example, her arms and legs didn't increase. Also too, she wore snug and formfitting clothes and didn't change what she was wearing to maternity clothes into the seventh month, when the "pregnancy" was announced. You may have hidden your pregnancy with overall weight gain- although I suspect it could have been seen in photos of you eight months along, which I note you haven't offered- but in Sarah's case, photos of her not only show she didn't gain weight, they show she didn't have a belly. As someone else has already asked, did you see the one of her where her belly is square?

"It is a violation of the eighth commandment to intentionally destroy someone's reputation for the sake of destroying their reputation."

I appreciate the fact that Morgan has insisted that religion be kept out of the discussion unless it is germane. I'm free to point out that your eighth commandment is absolutely nothing to me, and I feel it's inappropriate for you to remark on it in mixed company. I'm thinking that's the one about bearing false witness? If so, perhaps that is something you should write to Sarah- she has been bearing false witness about this pregnancy, as has been shown with photos. And it *is her religion, so presumably it would give her pause. In any case, nobody could damage her reputation more than she has herself.

"I don't think I'm going to comment any further."

Oh, don't go. Stay. Send some pictures in to Audrey, so we can compare them to the pictures of Sarah. Explain to us why we should disbelieve Sarah and why you think her word should be good enough for us to accept. We'd all appreciate it.

Lisa Graas said...

NakedTruth said:
"I am not sure if your pregnancies were the same but most women pregnancy bump patterns get consistently bigger."Where on earth did you hear that? That is simply not true.

NakedTruth said:
"Unlike Sarah's who we show was very visibly pregnant with her 1st and 4th (Track and Piper) but flat as a board with Trig."She was not "flat as a board" with Trig. You are greatly exaggerating there. When I bent over with my fifth pregnancy, I looked like Palin did in that picture where she was bent over. When I wore something form-fitting, I looked like she did in the photo with the reporter and if I wore a non-form-fitting outfit I looked like she did in the picture with the scarf.

NakedTruth said:
"This is possible but definitely not consistent with most women."You really need to research things before you present them as fact. Moms of multiple children will tell you that none of their pregnancies were the same. Obstetricians agree. It's common knowledge among moms of multiple children. I lost my first child to miscarriage so I won't count that one in comparing my sizes. My second pregnancy I had gestational diabetes and that was when I was the largest. My fourth pregnancy was when I was second largest (among all my full-term pregnancies). My third pregnancy was the third largest. My fifth pregnancy was when I had the smallest abdomen of all my pregnancies. I looked EXACTLY LIKE Sarah Palin does in these pictures.

Does my testimony prove she didn't fake a pregnancy? Of course not, but it does demonstrate that your evidence that she did is highly suspect.

Lisa Graas said...

I don't have to post pictures of myself to show that women can be different sizes during different pregnancies and the other points about pregnancy I have made. This is fairly common knowledge and can be found easily online at various websites about pregnancy.

Sarah in SC said...

I don't know about Lisa, but as another Catholic mother of 4 (but 13 pregnancies, 9 miscarriages), I can say without question that no matter how I carried--high low, all in front, all over, showing early, showing late--NEVER, NOT EVER did I carry a SQUARE baby, nor did my "bump," abdomen, nor any other part of me shrink in one photo and then reappear in another, appear square in some pictures and round in others--and because ALL of my pregnancies were high-risk (and in 3 different states, no less), that NONE of my OBs would have allowed me to travel any further than the hospital once I suspected my water broke, leaked, or even that I might have a bladder infection (which can cause preterm labor).

To say that just because you've already had X number of children you would "know" how labor is going to go is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. Ask Bobby Jindal and his wife, who gave birth to their most recent baby so quickly that the Gov. had to deliver the baby himself, before the EMTs could get there. And to risk giving birth to a special needs baby on an airplane? It's certifiable, if not criminal. So for a mother to say "I would have done exactly what Sarah Palin did" is rather frightening to me. And makes me question the legitimacy of any statements made.

This is why all the arguments the pro-Palin camp uses ("I looked the same way," "She knew what to do, she could tell labor wasn't starting, she knew what was going to happen" etc.) fall apart. They're aren't based in reality, because the reality is that she wasn't pregnant. Period.

Palin Pregnancy Truth said...


My mom, who was raised Catholic, was pregnant 5 times and gave birth to 4 children. Her last pregnancy with my little sister, when my mom was 38, there was no doubt from her appearance that she was pregnant and she was a slim woman before pregnancy.

When she started experiencing labor pains with her last pregnancy, she didn't go straight to the hospital. She waited until my grandmother came, made some final preparations, and then went to hospital with my dad. I was 10 at the time. I remember waiting with her while she was in labor. She waited maybe a little over an hour, having been familiar with labor, but had anything changed, she would have gone to the hospital immediately.

While she was calm and collected, I highly doubt she was in any position to give a speech or get on an airplane. When she arrived at the hospital she gave birth after only an hour. She was home the next day, but hardly in any condition to work for at least a week.

What does this prove? Nothing. No anecdotal evidence will sway me one way or another. The problem is not just with the pictures. There are a mountain of inconsistencies that have yet to be explained by Sarah Palin.

By all means, continue to post here, Lisa. It's nice to have alternative perspectives. But honestly, I think its your time you are wasting if you are trying to convince us all to give up on this.

Amy1 said...

Eileen: I commend your courage and seriousness of purpose. You could have done nothing, like everyone else is. Bravo! and Thank You for moving us further along this path. I wish I could thank you in person!

Eileen said...

Punkinbugg:I do know the boys. Because they are male teens,tiny village Alaskans- I doubt they know if she was about to 'pop' roughly ten days later- if you are relating the term "domino" to birthing?
I haven't asked them any particulars about the meeting or their impressions. Along with the teacher who now works in another town,there is unmined info there.
But Sarah does have domino theory working for her-the tangled web will eventually be unraveled as each bald-faced lie or fuzzing of the truth in her families' political and personal life comes to light.
We Alaskans, including our lame media in the form of newspapers, tv, statewide publications were pretty gullible about the PR package presented to us during the campaign for AK Governor which slipped in Sarah.
There was no true vetting before she became Gov.
Relevations and insight was gained from her Veep campaign, media investigative vetting from Sept'09 to now and how she has conducted herself as Governor these past two years.
ADN pratically had a fan club site for the past 6 to 8 months dedicated to Sarah and her antics and photogenic prowess. I would say they are light media in their leaning towards her but not completely bias. ADN has never been known for their investigative writing. Forget the Fairbanks Newsminer.
I just found out where another roughly 8 x 10 framed "lurking with the boys on the back staircase" photo is hanging on a non-public wall. I will try to have it photographed or possibly scanned with help of extended family members.
On certain years we have reporters and photographers from national and world media come thru-I fully intend to pursue interest in this mystery. Have to wait many months for that.
If you look at the clicked on-blown up version of the staircase photo-her right arm is at a slanted right angle. Under her elbow is the back wall design.

Quite a bit of that wall shows. Her angled side silhouette and butt just don't look right-not big enough for someone who will pop in ten days. Unless she was starvin' the kid ie: the Catholic option. Unthinkable,but I am Irish and lapsed Catholic.
The boys are wearing medium to more weight jackets-they had to hop on several planes to get to Juneau. There is a variant of temperature zones in Alaska especially during April.One is a bit husky and the other slender with fully opened to the bottom zipper making him appear bigger than he is. She looks downright small in comparison to these mid-high school, average height kids.

The spring ice just broke here and I believe there will be a flood of truth unveiled sooner or later about the dsyfunctional Palin saga.
Last night I saw the satellite dish news of a handcuffed Drew Peterson laughing all the way to jail after being arrested-he of dead wives fame. You can fool some of the people-some-all- of the time-yadda yadda.

I believe there is someone out there who will have the resources and balls to mine this resourceful site Audrey and pals have made and give Americans the dignity of a truthful answer. Who?-Mother Jones, the Nation, pj bloggers united (ha, I am in my tattered gown as I type but don't consider myself a blogger), Rachel Maddow, Keith Oberman.
Wo-Man Up, true journalists and bring back investigative reporting. Nothingless than our state integrity and future national security depend on it.

muah said...

Lisa Graas I appreciate your response to NakedTruth. Please don't hurt my feelers or ignore me.
I would like to know

March 26, 2008
April 13th, 2008

How would you describe Sarah's tummy on March 26, 2008? Can you compare or show us what your experience was?
You can do more research and you can be more detailed on your blog if you like. I think everyone agrees moms of multi births are not the same. It is not necessary you prove anything, I need a little more of your research and whatever you can offer personally to end my doubt. I am not saying one photograph is proof of anything. I am saying I haven't seen anyone or anywhere that a pregnant woman of 33 weeks, as in the March 26, 2008 photo has a tummy like that. I need to see what others research of 30 to 35 weeks of pregnancy shows. Photos help because we don't always see ourselves as others do or as photos show. Have you ever seen a photo of yourself and said I didn't know I looked so heavy? It happens. I realize women do have full term babies and they never knew they were pregnant. I am open to different possibilities.

Whatever photos you use, you do not need to show any one's face.

Have you researched this? There is also a video, I believe.
What do you think it is?

I can believe your sincerity, I just haven't seen your research.

Another part of this that needs to be answered is what is going on with the State of Alaska and photos? Why would photos disappear? The photos on the State site belong to the citizens of Alaska. If they want answers or to see them they have a right to inquire. The photos belong to the citizens if they want them to be restored for public view, they have a right to ask. It is their history.

T in Canada said...

It is interesting to me that most of Sarah Palin's supporters just accept that she was pregnant with Trig, when even Sarah herself has consistently shown evidence to the contrary. Right down to saying that she considered having an abortion. This recent one really bugs me.
Amongst all of the other dramas, quotes "taken out of context" and inconsistencies surrounding Trig's birth, she now expects people to believe that she wavers on her own opinion concerning abortion?

I have no choice but to believe, based on her own words:

she is either lying about considering having one;
she is lying about her long and very strongly held position on abortion, or;
the person who WAS pregnant with Trig was considering, or was presented with, abortion as an option.

To Lisa Graas:
If you've read this far, congratulations. You have as much time on your hands as the rest of us do! Thank you for your input to the forum and your voice.
Sarah Palin should be accountable for her words and her actions. That's all anyone has to go on. If there are discrepancies in those - any one of us have the right to question that, even you. She agreed to that as part of her job. Questioning elected officials about things they refuse to be accountable for is not "smearing their reputations".

Finally, Lisa, I don't need to see pictures of you pregnant when you were, unless you can show me a comparative decrease in belly size with dated proof that you were further along and looked less pregnant, or if your stomach ever looked rectangular. If you can do that, I can then accept your word that you looked exactly like SP during her pregnancy (whichever one, and at whatever stage you refer to).

After what she has already said about abortion in cases of rape or incest, it should be a 100% GIVEN that Sarah Palin would not, for one minute, consider an abortion for herself, regardless of the circumstances. SHE HERSELF HAS SAID that she would always unquestionably choose life for others. I guess I am expected now to just accept that her deep beliefs are that unstable and shaky. Okay - so how about the rest of what she believes and thinks and would dictate for Alaska and the entire USA?

Sarah's the one who has given me plenty of reasons to believe she is not Trig Palin's mother. Plenty over the past year. And now they are all listed here on this site in careful detail thanks to some regular Americans, with lives, who care about this. I would be a nervous American woman if SP came that close to having some kind of say over my life and I respect the care and work of all moderating this site because of that.

Besides all that - if SP wants people to stop asking questions, she could do it very easily, simply by being accountable and transparent, which she refuses to do! And I care because I'm a Canadian woman with occasional leisure time. My life is rich enough, but this is a bizarre soap opera that caught my interest. SP was the one who took the job. She's playing it out in front of me. I can't be blamed for looking at the dancing monkey, can I?

The only reason I need to care is because I have the right to expect more from someone with that kind of power, even if it's not over me. I care about American women enough to think they deserve the truth about the crazy labour, birth, and pregnancy stories from a woman who wants to intrude on their reproductive rights and run their country. I speak out because I know her kind of crazy can be contagious and we're next door. But above all, it is my right to do so. Palin gave it to me herself by being a public official. Audrey and everyone here have every right to speak out and demand accountability from Sarah Palin.
Whew! Sorry - end of rant!

vw: encon. Yes, please, put an end to this con!

mel said...

Eileen said: "If you look at the clicked on-blown up version of the staircase photo-her right arm is at a slanted right angle. Under her elbow is the back wall design. Quite a bit of that wall shows. Her angled side silhouette and butt just don't look right-not big enough for someone who will pop in ten days."

I noticed that without blowing up the pic. But I think it's the blue chairs showing through, and yes, a lot of them. A nonpregnant silhouette is thus further revealed.


LisanTX said...

Eileen--I, too, offer my thanks to you! I think you are courageous to "get" and send in this picture. Thanks for joining us search for Truth.

I love your statement about the ice breaking in Alaska and "a flood of truth" coming about the Palin saga. That's a great analogy.

We appreciate your comments and insight. Many thanks!

Windy City Woman said...

Punkinbugg, thanks for you analogy about Obama & Christianity. Only difference is that religious conversion is not a medical emergency!

Ennealogic said...

@Eileen, thank you very much for your contributions to this path of discovery. Thank you.

@Lisa Graas, it is very good that you've joined the conversation here. There is a lot to know and obviously no one here has the whole truth. It would be very helpful to me if you would answer a question that was posed earlier by others: You are quite sure that Sarah Palin did not fake a pregnancy with Trig, that she gave birth to him herself. Please explain why you are so confident that this is so.

Anecdotes from your own birthing history are good, but hardly convincing. What else can you tell us? I seek nothing but the truth and so far, the evidence is laying very heavily on the side of a faked pregnancy. If you've got something we could use to counter the current evidence, I'd love to see it. Thanks!

Bretta said...

"""Lisa Graas said... Sincere disagreement on the evidence... is one thing, but to vilify someone is another."""

It is my impression that people commenting on this blog have demanded strict documentation from each other on the evidence presented. Blog commenters don't seem to engage in vilifying SP either.

I don't want Palin to be in power because she behaves badly across the board. Much of it is unethical.

muah said...

Lisa Graas, You don't have to post pictures or do anything. I appreciate your contribution as it is. I agree with Palin Pregnancy Truth when saying anecdotal evidence won't sway. Photos are a powerful part of this but not all or enough to stand alone at this moment. I do see Audrey and crew's research as convincing. Nothing is finalized and I am open to compelling research from other sources. I value your perspective here and thank you.

If your peers care to take over where you leave off and stand up for your position, Sarah and Trig in this, perhaps they can answer more with their research. More important is what you do for Trig, if anyone has whole heart concern for Trig, they want the truth. For all the Non-TrigTruthers to bail out now is a boon for TrigTruthers. Or a bust for Non-TrigTruthers such as yourself. There is someone on your team who can finish what you started?

Eileen, Thank you with all my being for what you are doing.

NakedTruth said...

Lisa Graas,

Thanks for your reply but I must be honest with you I personally don't think you are being truthful. Maybe you thought you looked like Sarah but it's possible that others thought and saw that you were actually pregnant. Many have seen photos of Palin and don't think she was pregnant with Trig. Better yet, people around Sarah after she announced her pregnancy at 7 mos. didn't believe she was pregnant because she wasn't showing. Yea, sometimes we think we are smaller than we actually are and maybe you experienced this during your pregnancies. :-)

It appears that you have become very defensive about being called out on what I think is a lie. I am basing this on my experience and what I have seen with other women that have had multiple pregnancies. Could you be telling the truth? Possibly but I really doubt it. If you were you would have included your pictures in your initial post. You are too passionate about defending Sarah Palin to actually have pictures proving your point and not use them.

This is just my opinion and you are definitely entitled to yours.

Welcome to Palin Deceptions!

Ivyfree said...

"It is my impression that people commenting on this blog have demanded strict documentation from each other on the evidence presented. Blog commenters don't seem to engage in vilifying SP either."

I could probably do some vilifying, if vilifying were required. Hey, I just want to help!

Eileen said...

Some of the posts verify the meaning of words.
Such as "mockery": insulting or contemptuous action or speech...a counterfeit appearance,
PARODY-and I am not refering to Tina Fey.
Mock:to disappoint the hopes of,
(as in two teens starting out adulthood with a clean slate and after preg.bump in road-beaming in joy of bringing a life into world-the most powerful act human can do).To imitate closely(she got that wrong), simululated, feigned,to treat with contempt or ridicule-deride(as in SP comments 'real America', community organizer).
Then the dictionary tells us how the RP campaign strategy (Did Rove advise her with clever input?)of her own Wasillian Wizardy (oh yeah, she probably had Potter books banned there) was to ride into office in a Mock-Epic.

Unwittingly(due to her own and clan's incompetance), she is an example of mock-heroic behavior.
She believes her PR cliches-the field dress a moose hiking backwards while in high heels sporting a beauty crown and giving Piper tips on her future career choice of Babysitter(GVS) as she is ready to blast any critic away with her NRA santioned sidearm on her hip.

Chris Matthews has told us one too many times how clever SP is in playing the political game (not same as governing)-like being in a real life pageant. And this has been a 'spectacle,' resulting in giving Alaska a black eye just like that other 'out of this world' soap opera involving diapers and the astronaut. Not to forget Stevens' Self-dealing-gate in Girdwood.
I would have typed a comment yesterday but that would have made a mockery of our Mother's Day even if it would result in a bit of personal pleasure in cleaning house here in Alaska.

So, I read more here of the April essays, comments. Looks like you need PHOTOS from public events such as Iron Dog-the Feb08 BANQUET held, the outdoors start and the finish line? You need I.Dog Feb.2008 of the Palin gals and any mid-winter 08-09 of Bristol. Plus late winter-Spring 08 of SP.
Alaska has small population, many of us know folks in the Iron Dog and Iditarod races as well as being SPECTATORS ourselves to all these northern soap operas.
Also, more of us use cameras now due to digital choices and speed of development. More photographic evidence and chance encounters,
first person accounts .
We need to get the word out for folks here to share photos-I say the best way is via comments after SP articles. Bring up the site, bring up the request.

The title for Ms. Congeniality is up for grabs in AK as the poll numbers decreased along with the attention span and legislative cooperation of GINO to our state. She, like Miz Calif. may just lose her crown. One photo, loose tongue or tell all book deal away.

Oh-the zombie baby on Today show-I have too many times heard our local health aides(as in someone hired locally in a tiny village after a job opening and trained to be a health provider despite not having any previous inclination to being a role model of healthy living)at the clinic suggest Benadryl as a cure-all. Folklore I've heard for years.How much would you have to give to result in a zonked baby?

My philisophy- Attachment Parenting style-offer the breast to newborn-on a AK to Lower 48 flight or noisy situation-what they want anyhow. Not to be a knocked out cold plastic looking doll used in a Red Cross CPR class. I'm no fan of Couric-but after the accidental investigative interview she did-wouldn't you have liked to have had her be the interviewer instead of Matt so she'd give her impressions of the zombie infant Bristol had as a lap dog a la Paris Hilton?
Next the kid will have a custom logo carry-on tote courtesy of teen eye-candy foundation for all the appearances he has to be dragged to because of her token celebrity teen super-mommy 'job' performances. Hope its not a new job trend in Alaska to pay for bills-just like Octomom.

Jeez, even in the boonies I 'learn'- TOO MUCH-of NOTHINGness-and from just cnn, msnbc and of course adn, AK mag. and the occasional NPR. Maybe I need to check into FOX to clear my head of news.
This SP 'mock-epic' reminds me of the pain of watching MSM analyzing the lipstick on a pig or a Prez. explaining what the meaning of is is. The official rebuttal to Levi on Tyra took the political pageant cake.Go swine viral megaphone Megan(Stapleton)! Gotta get our gal SP outta of politics (and messin with motherhood) just to raise the national standards.That is the trend to follow.