Palin's Deceptions

Who's not your mama?

2009-08-19T09:14:00.001-07:00

(Note - this post has been updated twice ... scroll to the bottom.)

If a picture is worth a thousand words then this graphic is worth ten thousand.

Amidst all the discussion over who Trig's mother may be, some of our readers have stepped forward to gently remind us that a crucial message may be lost in the debate - the one message upon which this blog was founded. That message: Given the evidence, it is highly, highly suspect that Sarah Palin gave birth to the Trig Palin.

So to prove that we are still on message, we would like to halt the debate over who Trig's mother is and observe a moment of silence as we reflect upon who is not. The debate, we are sure, will resume. And that is fine just so long as we don't lose sight of the original message.

A special thanks to long-time reader and contributor Way of Peace for this awesome graphic.

Update: In response to many requests, Way of Peace has provided an alternate graphic. Let us know what you think. (Remember, click on them to make them bigger.)

Second update: In response to many MORE requests, we've also prepared one with the "Nail in the Coffin" photo. (Also, I re-read my post on this photo just this morning. If you are new to the blog and have never seen it, you should read it. If you are not new, but have not looked at this in awhile, you need to read this post again - if I do say so myself.

A candidate to the second highest office in the United States lied about being pregnant. I strongly suspect she must have had help in maintaining the deception. The MSM's failure to pick up this story in December, after the discovery of this photo, is nothing short of a criminal failure to the American people.)

The Cornerstone - Questions and Answers

2009-08-14T11:00:00.001-07:00

One question that has come up repeatedly in comments is the idea that Bristol was breastfeeding and some sort of forced weaning could have accounted for that amount of enormous breast change she evinced OR she was padded so heavily to hide any leakage.

Here's my read on that. This is something I feel very confident discussing since I worked as a lactation consultant for fifteen years and also nursed four children of my own.

Considering the number of bottles you see around Trig (there seems to be one in virtually every photograph) I doubt very much if he was breastfeeding as of August 2008. Someone, however, may have been pumping breast milk and bottle feeding it to him. This is not uncommon for Down Syndrome babies, who typically have a very hard time learning to nurse, and often seem to "forget how" between feedings.

Could that lactating mom have been Bristol? Possibly but more importantly, could that account for the enormous bust we see on the night of September 3, 2008? Here's my answer: I doubt it. When mothers who are nursing stop abruptly, breasts do swell and leak, but most importantly become very sore and tender.

I foolishly once separated myself from my 2 1/2 year old nursing toddler for about 40 hours. I should have known better since I was already a Lactation Consultant, but you know what they say about shoemaker's kids. I had to go to a funeral, it was two flights each way, then driving in cars, then mom is crying, and the idea of doing all that with a 2 1/2 year old was daunting. He'll be fine, I reassured myself. And he's not nursing that much. No problem.

Well, HE was fine. I, however, was not. By the time I got back home, about 40 hours after I left, I ached so badly that I could barely lift my arms to drive the car. The least jounce of the country road was excruciating. I had tried to express milk, most notably in an airport restroom stall (didn't want to shock anyone by trying to do it into a sink) but with limited success. (And this was all the more ludicrous since I rented electric breast pumps in conjunction with my LC practice so I had any equipment I could have desired to take with me already in my house.)

Contrast again these pictures, this one of Bristol taken on (or around) August 24,

Then this one, taken around September 1,

with this one taken on September 3rd.

There is no way that weaning, no matter how forced or abrupt could account for a change in breast size of this magnitude. Furthermore, I have watched every video I can find of this night. Bristol moves easily and naturally, waves at people, hands Trig to her mother then takes him back again with ease. She seems happy and comfortable. There is NO sign of any extreme discomfort. Believe me if your breasts had suddenly turned into hot tender rocks, you wouldn't be waving to the crowd with a smile on your face.

What about padding? Your typical breast pad, worn by most new mothers to prevent leaking, is about three inches across and is made of very absorbent material. They are small, discrete and effective. It's called "leaking," not "rupture." Unless they padded her with bath towels, there is no plausible way to account for this amount of sheer "mass."

The question of the dates.

Numerous people have suggested that Bristol was padded or enhanced in some way to make her look MORE pregnant. Here's the problem with that line of thinking.

Bristol Palin appeared in public on Sunday February 8th, 2009. While she definitely looked as if she might have had a baby "recently," it's hard to imagine her being less than ten days "post partum." So let's assume just for the sake of conversation, that Bristol Palin had actually given birth to Tripp on January 30th.

Why lie about this being her due date? January 30th was still too close to April 18th to allow Bristol to be the mother of both children. If this was her real actual due date there would have been no reason to lie about it.

According to one medical text I consulted, the shortest recorded time between birth and ovulation is 27 days. The mean time is 70 days (so more than two months) for non nursing women and 190 days (more than six months) for nursing moms. However, most texts I looked at agreed anything less than six weeks for a non nursing mom is pretty rare. Just for discussion, let's assume that a baby was born on April 18th, and then the mom ovulated 42 days later. That would have given a due date of Feb 21st. (Yes, there are reports of babies being born much closer than that... but in those cases, the second baby is premature.)

But we know for a fact that Bristol was not pregnant on Feb 7th, and was out and about in public. Furthermore, journalist John Ziegler states he saw Bristol in the Palin home on January 7th and states she was post partum. I believe he would know the difference between "post partum" and nine months pregnant and ready to pop. I also believe that while some journalists have shown themselves willing to not see things or just not ask the right questions, I find it difficult to believe that Ziegler would actually lie about something like that. The consequences of blatantly putting forth an untruth for a journalist would be career-ending. So therefore I tend to believe that John Ziegler did see Bristol on Janaury 7th, and to his eye she was not pregnant at that point.

So, I believe it's implausible that they padded Bristol to make her look MORE pregnant, just as it was unnecessary that they lie about the second birth date. If she was due to deliver any time before Feb 1, they did not need to. Why take the risk, either risk? Any birth before about the 15th of February would have "proved" that Bristol could not be the mother of both children.

One other comment mentioned these three additional shots of Bristol, all from during the campaign. I left them out of the first post primarily because of length but will add them here.

They are:

This was taken when Sarah visited a Wal-Mart on October 14th.

This was taken the following Saturday, October 18th.

This was taken the morning of the election, November 4th.

Again, I don't feel that they show a very solid "progression" of pregnancy, but that is my opinion alone, and I will be the first to concede that this proves nothing.

I don't know what to tell people about this mystery. I think I've made it clear that my jury is out on this whole issue. I am NOT saying that Bristol Palin's pregnancy in late 2008 was faked. I am NOT saying even that it was not exactly as reported.

I am saying that photographic evidence shows a pregnancy that does not appear to progress normally. Photographic evidence shows unequivocally that her bustline was padded at an event where there would be no plausible or rationale reason to do so. Common sense screams that something is wrong with the whole way the birth was presented.

It all makes my head hurt.

The Cornerstone Part 2

2009-08-12T14:14:00.001-07:00

In this section of this major post I will go over the primary evidence that makes me wonder if Bristol Palin's pregnancy during the campaign in the fall of 2008 was "as reported." I wish to be very clear that I am totally baffled by this.

As I said in my previous post, some of the evidence that points to everything being exactly as represented is very compelling. Yet, there is more - presented here - that just makes you go "Whoa!"

(Most every picture in this post can be made larger by clicking on it.)

Evidence which raises questions concerning whether Bristol Palin was actually pregnant, commencing in late spring 2008 and culminating with the birth of Tripp Johnston on December 27, 2008.

1. The open secret: One of the first "proofs" that Bristol was pregnant was an article published within 48 hours of the announcement that Palin was going to be the running mate that took a sort of "happy-go-lucky" spin on the Bristol pregnancy. Purporting to have interviewed several "locals" in Wasilla, the pregnancy was termed "an open secret." But there is in fact considerable evidence that the "open secret" was not all that open and was a lot more of a secret than has been put forth with that casual ("It's no big deal.") announcement.

First, we have the teens' MySpace and Facebook pages. Many pages are private, but many are not. (Or at least were not months ago – some have since gone private.) My research assistants have poured over the comments on scores of pages. There is not a single mention of Bristol being pregnant anywhere. If the secret was really nothing to fuss over, if the couple was openly together, if at least one set of parents were "happy" about the news, the absence of any mention regarding this open secret concerning the impending parenthood of these two popular kids seems impossible to explain.

Some kids in Bristol's circle have literally thousands of comments on their MySpace pages in 2-3 years. Many girls have babies, and chatter about baby showers and pregnancies, while maybe not exactly commonplace, is also not rare either. Levi's sister, Mercede, also was a very popular young lady. Yet not even a mention by the soon-to-be auntie that her brother, someone she is close enough to to have his name tattooed on her wrist, was going to be a daddy? Nope. Not a one.

This would make sense if the Palin family had asked the Johnston family to keep the news quiet, but, to repeat, the newspaper article published on takes the diametrically opposite position: that the news was an "open secret," and no big deal. This group of kids regularly posts photographs of themselves engaged in blatantly illegal behavior. In the past, Levi's relationships with other girls had been discussed, in sometimes "TMI" detail. In the face of this, the absence of a single acknowledgment or comment from a single Wasilla teen of the Levi / Bristol relationship OR pregnancy seems odd to say the least.

Second, I have in my possession emails which prove that an ADN reporter was still looking into the questions concerning Trig's origins in July 2008. The timing of this has always been significant to me, because it is well before Sarah Palin was picked as VP nominee, yet nearly three months after Trig's birth. There's no evidence whatsoever that the ADN reporter who was actively looking for information about the birth story in Wasilla ever heard that Bristol was pregnant, even though by mid-July she would have been four months. Certainly, when the story broke in September, ADN made no reference to the fact that they had already had the information.

Third, former ADN editor Michael Carey gave an interview with PBS on September 2nd. This is not some pajama-clad blogger in his parents' basement. This is a well-connected former editor of the Anchorage Daily News who had been sent by the ADN to Minnesota to cover the convention. He's asked point blank about Bristol being pregnant and he's very matter of fact.

Had HE ever heard that Bristol Palin was pregnant? No, Carey had not heard that Bristol was pregnant as of September 1 at all. But he had heard that Sarah had faked a pregnancy to cover for Bristol the previous spring. And he'd heard it LONG before the news broke on the Internet, at this point about four or five days previously.

I think his comments are so important that I am going to include them here verbatim.

MICHAEL CAREY: Well, I'm not there; I'm here. And I have not -- I'll give you an example of how this took people by surprise. On Friday, I went into work and started working on this particular story about the -- about Palin becoming vice president. But in the middle of the afternoon, the editor, Pat Doherty, said, would you like to go to Minneapolis? I said, yes. That's about what I knew at that point and none of us knew that Bristol Palin was pregnant. We didn't know anything.

I mean, I think there have been in the Daily News and some other reporting sort of the thought that, oh, yeah, this was common knowledge among certain people in Wasilla. People have said that, that being the governor's hometown. But I don't think that -- in a newsroom, as interested and gossip and good stories as ours, I did not hear this. I heard the other story, which is the fake pregnancy story. And maybe you want to go on to that at some point.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, that --

MICHAEL CAREY: The other part of the soap opera.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, that seems to have been what smoked out the Bristol Palin story, the attempt to put the first story to rest that came. Tell us more about the first one, which I guess was highlighted on the Daily Kos website.

MICHAEL CAREY: Yeah, that's been -- that story has been around for quite a while. I first heard it when a lawyer who I like very much and is a very smart guy presented this to me as the absolute truth.

RAY SUAREZ: That is, that Governor Palin was not pregnant?

MICHAEL CAREY: No, and that the whole thing was faked because she was covering up for her daughter who was pregnant. And the daughter was having the child and Sarah claimed it was her child and faked the pregnancy so as not to embarrass the daughter and not to create I guess political backlash for some kind of conservative values concern.

He is calling seriously into question the idea that it was "common knowledge." He specifically states that he does NOT think it was common knowledge based on the fact that, in their newsroom, he never heard it.

2. Bristol's appearance raises questions. Before I continue I need to say categorically that I am not happy that I am having to sit here, analyzing the potentially pregnant body of a 17-18 year old girl. Bristol Palin is younger than my own daughters and I find this very distasteful. But … I believe that it is precisely this emotion that the Palins had hoped to engender by "throwing Bristol under the bus," i.e., that reporters would be just too squeamish to ask the hard questions about and to take a good long look at the physiology of a pregnant minor.

First, Bristol's bust on the night of 9/3/2008 was padded or enhanced in some way. Analysis of many high quality photographs show this unequivocally, and she's padded so heavily that it borders on the ludicrous. Whoever dressed that MINOR, that CHILD that night should be put in prison. I mean that quite literally.

Contrast to this picture, which at first glance seems like a shot of John McCain, with Gov. Palin and Piper. Yes, but look at the background. It's a perfect profile shot of Bristol, emerging from behind Levi's body. Her bust is literally larger than her head. There is no way, based on other photographs of her, that this can be natural.

She is not only much larger that night than she was just ten days earlier (in spite of having a windbreaker on in this picture,

it's clear that the bust is not there), in several shots it appears as if the padding has slipped and that she is actually lopsided.

My experience with my own pregnancies and the pregnancies of countless other women is that bust size typically increases early in pregnancy ("bigger boobs" is often the first sign of pregnancy women report, far earlier than any discernable "tummy") and then stays more or less consistent until quite late. Photographs of Bristol from July (when she would have been 17-18 weeks pregnant)

and late August (only ten days prior to the RNC - see above) show no evidence of a bust anywhere close to the size on 9/3. Photographs of her from later in pregnancy (we don't have many but we have a few) also show that "bolster bosom" is gone.

Why would you pad/enhance the bust of a young woman who is genuinely pregnant? It is what it is. If she's really pregnant, why would it even occur to anyone to make her look more pregnant? If Bristol pregnancy was "as reported" on September 5th, in due time, the baby would be born, the veracity of the Palin/McCain's statements to the press would be born out. But putting any sort of padding or artificial enhancer on her at all can only have one goal: to give the appearance of something that is not true. So what would that be?

Second, we have very few photographs / screen shots of Bristol Palin during the campaign. She does not appear to have traveled with campaign nearly as extensively as Willow, Piper, and Trig, but she was present on at least a couple of occasions. In one brief sequence filmed, we believe, around the 15th of October, Bristol is shown some time apart on the same day. The size and shape of Bristol's pregnancy appears to change between the time of the two shots. In addition, the motion of her body as she deplanes seems odd. Pregnant women in their seventh months go down stairs slowly, leaning back slightly, protecting their bellies. Bristol bounces down the stairs. (Watch for the very brief clip beginning around the :35 point.)

Watch the motion of the belly as she moves. I cannot say that it appears natural, though it's hard to put my finger on just exactly what is "wrong."

Now look at the screen grab of her as she gets back off the bus to get on the plane.

To my eye, the belly seems to have increased in size – rather significantly. Although I do not know who far apart in time these two shots were taken, it hardly matters if it's half an hour or three hours. Based on Bristol's clothes, I believe it is the same day.

Third, in one additional quick shot of Bristol that is available, she is shown walking into church services on December 10th.

She would have been in her ninth month of pregnancy, approximaly two weeks prior to Tripp's birth. Look at the screen grab carefully. It appears as if she could push the vest, which does not appear to be a maternity jacket, closed easily.

She is certainly NO bigger than she was in this shot,

two months earlier, and may be smaller which defies all laws of pregnancy physiology. (Can that vest be pushed closed? I don't think so.)

She does not move like a pregnant woman. Pregnant women have a very distinctive "gait" due to connective tissue in the pelvis softening and loosening in response to late pregnancy hormones. This has nothing to do with age or the number of children a woman has had, though in subsequent pregnancies, the effect is usually apparent sooner. But not Bristol. She's really hoofin' it over the icy path, and when she sees the cameras she almost starts to run. Contrast her gait with some of the people (who presumably are not pregnant) walking into church ahead of the Palins. They walk gingerly and catiously over the ice. In my opinion, Bristol Palin does not appear as if she is nine months pregnant here, two weeks away from giving birth.

3. The announcement of the birth itself was handled to a way that can only be termed bizarre.

First, on Monday December 29th, People Magazine broke the story on the website: According to Bristol's great aunt, (so it would be the great great aunt of the child) the child had been born in Alaska. The aunt lives in Washington state and had learned of this by email. Initial reports had several different weights and dates, but finally consensus seemed to agree on 12/27. Numerous other news outlets, including the Anchorage Daily News followed suit on the announcement by quoting the People source. As far as I can tell, to this day, not a single media source ever verified the information in Alaska independently.

Read this again: The news that Tripp Palin was born came from a great-great aunt who had learned of it via email, had never seen the child, who lived in another state, and who had been cold-called by a national publication, which then posted it on their website. No hospital was ever named as his place of birth. No happy fellow Wasilla resident ever mentioned anywhere that "Bristol Palin had her baby the same day as me, and isn't that cool?" Hospital staff are bound by privacy regulations, but other patients are not. Not one word ever leaked to the press that Bristol had given birth, even though Palins and Johnstons and other of Bristol's friends should have been trouping in and out of the hospital for 1-2 days. But no one was ever spotted by anyone.

Second, then the Governor's Office refused to give an unequivocal statement on the birth for another 48 hours. Citing "privacy" they would not confirm or deny that the birth had even taken place. Privacy? PRIVACY???? Good God! This is coming from the woman who told about six billion people that her seventeen year old daughter was pregnant in the first place, instead of, oh, having her doctor give a news conference or releasing a birth certificate on September 1st. It's an absurd hypocritical construct, and she should have been called on it on the spot. Instead, everyone in the press just sort of hung around, dumbfounded.

Tripp's birth was – as I said – the Cornerstone of Sarah's "I'm Trig's mom" campaign. This was her BIG PROOF. This should have been a HUGE moment for her on a HUGE day. She's vindicated! And then the baby is born, and they won't even discuss it?

Critics will point out that it was Bristol's baby and she WAS entitled to privacy. There's no dispute there when it comes to personal details of the birth and photographs of the child: It's Bristol's call. But considering just how much was riding on this for Sarah, the fact that she did not give a personal simple statement to the press as new grandmother standing in the hall of a hospital, (even if the baby was never shown) is odd at best.

Sarah could have done this on her own, regardless of Bristol's wishes. Even if Bristol did not want her baby shown, would it even have occurred to Bristol to tell her mother she could not stand in the hall of the hospital, and pronounced herself, "Happy, tired, and proud."? Considering how on many other occasions Sarah has behaved like the pitbull she calls herself – on steroids - Palin's keeping herself completely out of the public eye in the days after Tripp's birth was very inconsistent with her general behavior. At least with Trig's birth, we got Chuck and Sally Heath in the hall of Mat-Su hospital holding a baby. With Tripp we got nothing.

4. No one outside the family has ever come forward to say they saw the baby prior to the Greta Van Sustern interview on February 18th, almost seven weeks after the birth.

Initially the explanation was that no photos could be taken because Bristol was negotiating with several publications for "first photos." But like so many other stories, this one was just dropped. Was this nothing but a delaying tactic? No publication appears to ever have gotten the touted "first photos." Bristol was possibly paid something by People for the photos of her and Tripp connected with her graduation… almost five months later… but the fantastic price tags that had been used to explain why there were no early photos of Tripp with either Sarah or Bristol, well, that story just faded into oblivion.

John Ziegler, who did an interview with Sarah Palin on January 7, would not confirm that he had seen (or even heard) a newborn in the house. He stated that he saw Bristol, and mentions specifically that she was post-partum, but when asked by me point blank if he ever saw a baby, would not say he had. I have always personally found it inexplicable that Sarah didn't at least show the baby to Ziegler that day, and possibly have a photo taken of her holding her new grandson, even if they chose not show the baby's face.

5. There was a significant discrepancy that has never been followed up concerning Levi Johnston's whereabouts in the days after the birth. The Anchorage Daily News reported on January 5th that Levi's lack of either high school diploma or GED rendered him ineligible for the electrician's apprentice job he had, and that he had quit and according to his father, that evening (Monday night, i.e., January 5th) was flying back from the North Slope. But according to Levi's mother he had spent the entire first week plus after Tripp's birth on 12/27 at the Palin home taking care of newborn Tripp. So where WAS Levi? With Tripp and Bristol? Or at work hundreds of miles outside of Wasilla? Seems like the ADN placed him, with eyewitnesses, on the North Slope. So... what's the real truth here? (Of course, all this indicates is that Levi was not in Wasilla the first week in January, 2009. Since in other places, it's already been alleged that things were off between Levi and Bristol before the birth, it's entirely possible that the "lie" is that Levi was actively involved with the baby, at the Palin's home, after the child was born. However, what that still leaves us with is that a whole lotta fibbin' is going on somewhere.)

5. Levi seems to have a curious lack of photographs of himself with Tripp. When asked for one, on March 16th (more than 2 1/2 months after the birth announcement) as he sat in front of his house in his truck if he had a photo of Tripp, he produced an ultrasound.

When on the Tyra Banks show in April to discuss presumably his relationship with Bristol and his son, one of the photos provided to the Tyra Banks show was of Levi holding, not Tripp, but Trig the previous spring (almost a year earlier.) No photo of Levi, with Bristol and Tripp has ever been released, even though according to the official "line," the young couple's breakup did not occur until well over a month after the baby was born.

6. It is inexplicable to me that Sarah Palin, given her family values philosophies, has never chosen to do any sort of informative, positive media event on the fact that she and her daughter had babies less than a year apart, with both of them having made difficult decisions. Ladies' Home Journal, Good Housekeeping, or one of the Christian family publications would have been thrilled to have the opportunity to do a sit-down with Bristol and Sarah jointly. So what's the problem? Sarah has never shied away from publicity (she certainly used Trig relentlessly during the campaign), and Bristol has shown herself open to media as well: she agreed to the GSV interview on Feb. 15, and did interviews and appearances for Candies in April. The silence is deafening.

There are other discrepancies as well. Sarah's own demeanor towards Levi was very very cold in an interview less than two weeks after the election, even though the official line is that everything was fine between the young couple and with the families until after the birth. In several interviews, Sherry Johnston as well as her son, can't seem to get basic details straight. You get the sense with Sherry on numerous occasions that she's talking about a baby... but not the baby that was supposedly born on December 27. She tries to do time frames, and she never quite gets it right. And Levi, how old WAS Bristol when she got pregnant? 16 no uhh 18. (If Tripp's pregnancy was as reported, she would have been 17.)

All in all, what's the old saying? "A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." I think that so many people have told so many lies for so long that I wonder if anyone knows the truth.

Bristol Palin's pregnancy, like the one Sarah presented to the world in early 2008, does not add up. Unlike Sarah's, which I am sure was not "as presented" I honestly do not know what to conclude about Bristol's. Photographic evidence, prior to the announcement of the pregnancy, seems to indicate she WAS pregnant. It also shows clear indication of obfuscation: bolster bust on the night of September 3, 2008. Palin's behavior around the time of the "birth," seems inexplicably disinterested in what should have been a huge event for her, yet there is a baby who appears to be the right age for having been born around the end of 2008.

You decide. It's all I can say.

The Cornerstone Part 1

2009-08-12T09:45:00.000-07:00

It's been a busy few weeks as this blog and many others have followed the resignation of Sarah Palin from the governorship of Alaska. At times, inevitably, we've strayed from the central purpose of this blog and website, which is to document, analyze and archive the considerable extant evidence that Ex-Gov. Palin faked a pregnancy in spring of 2008.

But all pendulums swing back. I have numerous posts in the "in the works," but something I read yesterday made me put aside all the other things I am working on and write this. On another site, I ran across a reference to this blog, and, specifically, a reference to me. Audrey, it was claimed, is a "nutbar." And why? Because apparently, according to this individual, I have continued to pursue the baby story even though the birth of Tripp Johnston PROVES that Bristol Palin cannot be Trig's mother. And that, in turn, PROVES that Sarah must be.

It occurred to me that this really is the cornerstone of everything. Just as Bristol's pregnancy during the campaign "proved" that Sarah is Trig's mother, now Tripp's existence proves the same thing. I'd like to use this post to look at this "cornerstone" in great depth. Before I even start, though, I do want to apologize for the length of this post. It's quite long, with a good deal of embedded video and pictures. Although the final section is the most critical, I have made the decision to split it into two sections. The second section will be published tomorrow.

The premise, that the existence of Tripp Johnston proves that Sarah must be Trig's mother, is absurd. Just off the bat, this statement ignores three other possibilities.

First, Bristol always was (and I believe remains) the most likely possibility for the "other mother" for numerous reasons that have been discussed extensively elsewhere. However, I have never taken the position that Bristol was the only option and I still don't.

Second, numerous people have commented that Trig Palin appeared older than 4 ½ months at the RNC in September 2008. I am not willing to go "on record" saying I agree with this, but I certainly do not disagree. In photos of him from the RNC, he does look large and mature for a 4 ½ month old baby, born five weeks early, particularly given that – in general – Down Syndrome babies have poorer muscle tone and slower development than non Down Syndrome babies.

I was struck by this again when watching the video that Sarah Palin did for the Special Olympics some time last January: Trig, to me and many others, looks older than nine months.

This opens the possibility that Trig Palin was born earlier than announced. If true, this would allow Bristol to be mother to both children.

Third, the possibility must be considered that the entire pregnancy during the campaign was not "as reported" and it is on this possibility that I wish to focus this post. I believe that while there certainly is "proof" that Bristol was pregnant during the campaign and now has a child named Tripp Johnston in her care, I also think that a careful analysis of the evidence raises valid questions and, shall we say, curiosities. I know – I can hear the screams from here. Holey MOLEY! Now she thinks Bristol's pregnancy was faked? She's gone off the deep end.

Frankly, I don't know what to think. But in my thought process the other day, as I realized that Tripp Johnston's birth date and existence is the "cornerstone" of the "Trig is Sarah's" camp, I decided to take another look – a long look – at all the evidence, pro and con, regarding Bristol's pregnancy which allegedly culminated in the birth of Tripp Johnston on 12/27.

The initial response among many of my readers regarding the pregnancy, after all, was a great deal of skepticism. Many wrote to me asserting that it was faked, a position that, at the time, I did NOT agree with (thought I believed it was not as far along as it was stated.) Once Tripp showed up, we simply buried everything that was wrong with the "Bristol is pregnant" story from the beginning. We ignored the discrepancies with the birth story, the extremely fortuitous timing, everything that had been bothering a lot of us all along.

While there certainly is evidence – very hard to ignore evidence – that Bristol was pregnant and had a baby, there is also evidence to the contrary that is just plain puzzling and does not add up.

I am going to list the evidence – as I see it. As I have said so often in the past, you will need to decide. Is Audrey really the "nutbar" she has been made out to be, or just might there be something here?

Evidence which supports Bristol being pregnant, commencing in spring 2008 and culminating with the birth of Tripp Johnston on December 27, 2008.

1. There is a baby, who has been presented to the media on numerous occasions as Tripp Johnston. He appears to be the correct age (more or less) for having been born on 12/27/08. This is obviously very compelling. However, it must be pointed out that it is possible to obtain a baby other ways, first (legally and permanently) via adoption and second, via borrowing a child on numerous occasions. Both scenarios would be very risky in terms of being exposed. But either one is POSSIBLE, and that is a fact.
2. Photographs of Bristol Palin, taken on the day that John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate show an appearance consistent with her being in early pregnancy, though in many photographs she is covered with a baby blanket so it's difficult to ascertain accurately. (Of course, just the fact that they covered her would also tend to prove the point.) As no announcement had yet been made, this is very persuasive.

3. Levi Johnston has appeared in photographs taken in 2009 with a baby who appears to be the same baby that Bristol has appeared with on numerous occasions.
Just last week he has confirmed the outlines of the timing of Bristol's pregnancy with the Anchorage Press. If one is going to allege that there has been any fraud regarding Bristol's pregnancy, Levi Johnston is in on the deception and is actively maintaining it at this point.

4. Photographs of Bristol taken mid- February, 2009 show a midsection consistent with a "post partum" appearance.

5. A Washington Times blogger reported seeing Bristol Palin poolside on the day after the election, appearing quite pregnant. The blogger, someone whose other work shows no great interest in, support for, or dislike of Sarah Palin, mentioned it seemingly randomly. This non-scripted sighting of Bristol is very credible. It's hard to imagine a teen agreeing to appear at a pool wearing only a t-shirt in some sort of pregnancy "appliance."

Evidence which I believe is "inconclusive" in supporting the pregnancy.

Numerous people in Wasilla reported knowing that Bristol was pregnant. But the dating in and of itself is more problematic. If one is going to use "people in Wasilla knew Bristol was pregnant" (more on this below) as proof of the reported Tripp pregnancy, it's hard to justify picking and choosing among the reports that she was pregnant much earlier, reports that would disprove the Tripp pregnancy.

In fact, reports, in Wasilla, of Bristol being pregnant go back into 2007. One rumor was posted publicly to the Internet on April 8, 2008, and outlines the story exactly: Bristol was pregnant and not in school, Sarah was not pregnant, Sarah was faking to cover for her daughter. Based on a due date of 12/27, there is no way that that pregnancy could have been known in Wasilla as early as early April.

Sue Williams, a Wasilla caterer, reported to the press that Bristol was pregnant before it was announced by the McCain campaign, so I believe she must be taken seriously. The problem is that her dates do not jibe with what was later claimed (i.e, a pregnancy that could not be known publicly prior to May, 2008.) In fact, her "dating" corresponds exactly to the reddit report, above: she claimed to have heard that Bristol was pregnant in early April (and it was, at this point, not whispers from adults but being bandied about by a middle-schooler.) She makes a point of saying that this meant that Bristol and Sarah were pregnant simultaneously, and she asserts that as of the RNC, Bristol was late in her third trimester and almost ready to deliver. Obviously, that did not turn out to be true.

Sarah Palin herself mentioned the "Bristol is pregnant" rumors to Bill McAllister, then a KTUU reporter and later her press secretary, before March 2008. She denied them, but she did know about them and talk about them to someone else.

Coming tomorrow: The evidence that raises questions about Bristol Palin's pregnancy.

Link Submissions

2009-08-12T07:33:00.000-07:00

I'm going to be putting up a links list in the sidebar of the Palin's Deceptions blog today. Since this blog began, a number of our readers have become inspired to start their own Web sites and blogs. The latest is Amy1's very creative contribution.

If you would like your Web site included in the Links List please email Morgan at thetokenhippie@gmail.com

Include your Web site/Blog name and its URL.

Thanks,

Morgan

PD Moderator

Go Ahead. Make my Day

2009-08-04T10:51:00.000-07:00

The title, as I am sure you all know, is not mine. It belongs to Harry Callahan (a.k.a. Dirty Harry) and is from the 1983 film Sudden Impact. It's probably one of the most famous single movie quotes ever.

"Go ahead. Make my day."

Approximately five days ago, Gryphen on his Immoral Minority blog reported that he'd been told by a source in Wasilla that Sarah and Todd Palin were splitting up. He also reported several other pieces of info, including:
1. Sarah Palin had purchased property in Montana.
2. Sarah Palin had pitched her wedding ring into a lake.

Within hours, Dennis Zaki had stated that he was able to confirm Gryphen's information (at least the splitsville part) with a former Palin staffer.

Within a few hours more, Gryphen had received a letter from Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein, which threatened to sue him and asked him (oh so politely) if he'd rather be served papers at home or at the "kindergarten where he works." Since school is not even in session it was a ludicrous question asked for one reason only: to threaten and intimidate him.

Since then, numerous right-wing fundamentalist blogs have delighted in republishing Gryphen's private information. Not only that, but at least one has contained explicit allegations (claiming first hand knowledge) that Gryphen is a pedophile, warnings to parents to keep their children away from "this demon," and (helpfully) providing the blog's readers with the email addresses of many of Gryphen's fellow teachers so that they, too, could be contacted and presumably warned about the MONSTER in their MIDST.

This is all incredibly disgusting. Sarah Palin drew far more attention to the story by squawking about it than Gryphen ever could have. And, somewhat lost in the entire shuffle is of course, the fact no suit has been filed.

Palin has threatened to sue bloggers before. One, Shannyn Moore responded by standing in front of Palin's office in Anchorage, with a group of reporters and said, "Ok, so sue me." I'm sure you're all waiting with baited breath to find out what happened that time. Yup, you guessed right. No suit that time either.

But at least these guys got threatened. But what I find even more interesting are the issues she's never even threatened to sue over. Is there a pattern there? I think so.

There've been a couple of these. National Enquirer claimed during the campaign that they'd watched a video of 15 year old Bristol smoking pot and laughing about her mother being the future governor. They made very explicit statements about Track's involvement with drugs as well. These were not only fairly serious allegations, involving illegal behavior, (which divorce is not) but also involved two of Mama Grizzly's cubs. Threats to sue the National Enquirer? Not a mention. Could it be... gasp... that there really IS a video tape? That the info about Track was accurate?

Ditto for allegations that Sarah OR Todd OR both have had affairs. That's not gonna play too hot with the family values crowd, but again not a whisper of legal action. Another gasp. Maybe there really were some affairs?

And then, we have the elephant in the room: The topic we have come to call Babygate. The allegations that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy in the spring of 2008 and did not give birth to Trig Palin on April 18, 2008.

Unlike the stories about Bristol smoking weed and Sarah and/or Todd looking for a little strange, (neither of which I believe Ex. Gov. Palin has ever mentioned or addressed) she's mentioned the allegations about Trig many times. She's brought the "answer" up in interviews even when no one asked the question. I have made very strong statements. I and others have accused her flat out of being a liar. Yet neither I nor numerous other bloggers who have looked at the discrepancies in her story has ever been threatened in any way.

Even her fans have noticed this. On numerous boards and forums that support Sarah Palin, many people have wondered and commented. "Why doesn't she sue?" "It's time to sue." "Why doesn't she do something about these crazies?" "Why doesn't Sarah DO something about this?"

Ummm, let this crazy give you a little clue. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If Gov. Palin sues someone concerning allegations that her pregnancy was not "as reported," the burden of proof is on her (as plaintiff), not on the defendant. She would have to prove she gave birth to Trig. And just saying, "Trig is mine because I say he's mine and I wouldn't lie" might be a closer for Team Sarah, but it isn't going to cut it with a judge.

The defendant would have the right to subpoena just about anyone he wanted for depositions. Sarah and Todd for starters, but the list might soon be long (and most impressive.) Use your imagination. Who would you like to talk to? Cathy Baldwin-Johnson? Definitely. Andrea Gusty? Oh yeah. Flight attendants on the two four hour flights she took from Texas back to Alaska with her water leaking the whole time? You betchya.

In addition, she'd have to produce medical records and, of course, produce a certified copy of an official state birth certificate. Maybe even a DNA test. And, as I have been saying for months, she either can't or won't produce any of this.

For starters, does anyone here really think that Dr. Baldwin-Johnson will risk her medical license by lying under oath? So far, she probably (probably) has only skirted the edge of medical ethics issues. But if she's subpoenaed, she's going to fold like a K-Mart lawn chair. Palin knows that...

So, in the words of that great sage, Harry Callahan, "Go ahead. Make my day."

No Todd Left Behind

2009-08-01T11:05:00.000-07:00

I had a post prepared for today updating all this blog's readers on an interesting new discovery regarding Willow Palin (via photographic evidence, she's been finally and almost certainly disproved as a possibility for Trig's mother) plus some updates on some other things we've been working on. And I will come back to that. But the breaking news is just too hot to ignore.

About four hours ago, on Alaska blog Immoral Minority, the news comes: Sarah and Todd Palin plan to split. The Alaska Report follows suit.

I too have sources in Alaska. Over the last week, I have also heard rumors of things not being quite right at the Palin abode. I have said from the moment of her resignation that things did not add up, like really didn't add up, like nine plus nine equaling twelve million... something along those lines.

Palin's speech announcing her plans to resign was sloppy and rushed. Quit if it's all too much, fine, but quit in a way that preserves at least some chance of a future. Her horribly-written, terribly-delivered, gasping, incoherent (and that's a compliment) dishonest speech on July 3rd pounded nails in her own coffin. From the inside. Something more than being a lame duck governor was up. Big time.

Her speech in Fairbanks on the 26th was better, but not by much, and then, absurdly, bizarrely, she drove off and left Todd standing. Todd managed to joke about it with reporters ("No car for Todd.") but I know I certainly have never left my husband standing on a street corner by accident. I lose sunglasses from time to time, but hubby?

And then - in spite of having well in excess of 100,000 followers on Twitter - she has not set up her new EX Governor account - in what, five days? The adoring faithful over on Team Sarah are losing their minds. What does it take to set up a Twitter account? Five minutes? No one wastes this kind of political capital. She's been announced as a no-show at a Republican Woman's event at the Reagan Library, and now - as has been the strategy in the past - Poodle Stapleton denies that she ever agreed to attend in the first place.

No car for Todd indeed.

But does this have anything to do with the central theme of this website and blog?

It might.

Stay tuned.

For Your Viewing Pleasure

2009-07-29T19:29:00.000-07:00

I have been a bit scarce the last week due to a death in my husband's family. And it was a big week - with Gov. Palin becoming again plain old Mrs. Palin.

I've got some interesting things in the works. First, an update:
1. We have been working to date the shots of Former Gov. Palin walking across her office. We have NOT abandoned this, but it is proving much harder than we thought.
2. I do intend to finish the series I began "Response to Progressive Alaska." When finished, I will move all parts of the post to the website proper as well.
3. Here's a teaser: We have some interesting material from October 2007 that no one has ever seen. No more hints, but it's coming soon.
4. I have promised for months that we would do a post concerning the Heart Association Luncheon in Fairbanks on February 15th, 2008, which was supposedly attended by Then Gov. Palin and all three of her daughters. There are numerous questions and discrepancies that have come to light about this event, and another that occurred the same day. I - and my researchers - are frankly at a dead end with this, so we intend to post what we have (which is actually quite a bit and rather amazing) and hopefully someone in Alaska will help us fill in the blanks.

But... for tonight... I offer a summary of what I consider the best videos. I am sure that many of you have seen some (or most) of these, but if you have not, here you go:

First, from our friends at BreePalin. This is a very good summary. Pass this on to as many people as you can.

Second, from our friends at Palingates.

I think that John Stewart's video on Palin's resignation is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. Put your drink down before you watch it. (Be sure to watch all the way to the end, where Stewart discusses Don Lemon's CNN coverage of Palin. The quote of the century is found here, in response to Lemon's request for some "positive" comments on Palin. (Apparently they weren't getting many.) The clincher: You want a positive comment on Palin? I'm positive she's an idiot.)

For some reason I cannot get this video to embed on blogger, but here is the link:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-27-2009/quitter

Exit stage right

2009-07-27T06:57:00.000-07:00

What did she say? Nothing, really. And it took her twenty minutes to do it.

I did find this one quote rather amusing:

I took the oath to serve you, I promised…remember I promised to steadfastly and doggedly guard the interests of this great state like that grizzly guards her cubs, as a mother naturally guards her own. And I will keep that vow wherever the road may lead. Todd and I, and Track, Bristol, Tripp, Willow, Piper, Trig…I think I got ‘em all

She thinks she got 'em all? Well let's hope so. We'd hate to see any of Mommy's Little Props left out.

And then to use a maternal analogy in regards to Alaska? Given what we've seen of Sarah Palin, Alaskans may want to say, "Thanks, but no thanks."

A tale of two birth certificates

2009-07-23T15:21:00.001-07:00

It’s 5:30 in the afternoon and I’m sitting here watching MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. The topic – for the third day in a row: Barack Obama’s birth certificate, and whether or not it is genuine.

It wouldn’t surprise me if I flipped over to another one of the networks and find they are covering the same story. They were yesterday. FOX had it. CNN had it. Lou Dobbs was practically salivating. This "issue" - which has been floating around now for nearly two years - is suddenly more popular than swine flu.

Was Barack Obama born in the United States? Inquiring minds want to know. And even though commentators insist that this is nothing more than a theory kept alive by some persistent bloggers, they continue to respond to the people who’ve refused to let it go.

And I’m wondering how these bloggers got so lucky. Maybe their blogs are more stylish or they have snazzier widgets. Maybe their blogs play music or something. Frankly, I don't know.

After all, we’ve been working on a conspiracy theory of our own here at Palin Deceptions.

When questions were posed to Obama, he said, “Here, look at my birth certificate. This proves I’m not lying.” When questions were posed to Palin, she said, “Here, look at my knocked up unwed teenage daughter. This proves I’m not lying.”

Factcheck.org has verified that Obama’s birth certificate is genuine. The Honolulu Advertiser birth announcement, placed nine days after Obama's birth, has also passed muster. Obama traveled abroad as a young child, and had to get an American passport at an early age. Was his birth certificate already "fake" then? This seems extremely implausible.

Regardless, whatever the truth, the "deception" would have had to have happened nearly fifty years ago and the principal players, (mother, father, doctor) are now all dead. IF - and I am saying IF - there was some irregularities with Obama's birth, he certainly had nothing to do with it.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, refused to produce a birth certificate for Trig, a child supposedly born a scant four and 1/2 months prior to her V.P nomination nod, still as of this writing less than a year and a half ago. Her doctor, very much alive and kicking, would not give a simple press conference when the rumor reached crescendo level on August 31. Even the birth announcement Palin sent out had no date of birth. Has anyone else here ever seen a birth announcement without a date? I haven’t.

Palin has been far less forthcoming with information. Her main defenses have been two: "Bristol can't be Trig's Mom so that means I have to be" AND "I shouldn't have to answer that question."

And let’s not kid ourselves. She got close to power. Very close, thanks to the GOP. If she lied to her constituents about her pregnancy then that’s nearly as significant as what Obama’s critics are trying to pin on him.

As one of our researchers pointed out today, she can lay her hands on her child’s birth certificate at any given moment if she needs to. Any birthmother can. Showing Trig’s, while not providing absolute proof (see our previous post on Alaska birth certificates and adoption) could potentially at least verify that he was born on the date that has been claimed. They have not even done that.

Why? And why isn’t the same media that now exploring the truth behind Obama’s birth exploring the truth behind Trig’s?

Yes, Obama is president. But if McCain had won, Palin would have been just one malignant melanoma away from the same office.

Those of you who have followed this blog know the amount of evidence we’ve amassed. In light of the renewed interest in the Obama birth story some of you have expressed the same frustrations and have wondered aloud how the media can give so much airtime to one story while ignoring another.

I wish I had an answer for you but I don’t. I’m as baffled as you are. And all we can do is continue to ask the questions the media won’t.

More on... Who are these Folks?

2009-07-15T17:58:00.000-07:00

Earlier today, I posted several screen shots of people meeting with Sarah Palin in her office that we are trying to identify? Why? Because we'd like to date the meeting.

Here's the background. Last winter, as we reviewed myriad videos, we noticed a brief segment in a Canadian Broadcast Company report that they had done on Palin - and quite explicitly - the Trig baby question way way back on September 3rd. I had watched the video countless times back in September of '08, as my investigation was just beginning but I had not watched it, as of last winter, in months.

However, as we were going through old material looking for something - anything - we might have missed, the segment jumped out at us, because we realized that Gov. Palin was wearing what we had come to call "scarf chic," her standard "pregnancy" uniform, yet it was footage we had never analyzed or dated. We were pretty sure it had to be from 2008, due to the star in the window (indicating that she has a child in service) because Track had not yet enlisted in the winter of 2007. It's also her office in Juneau - we're sure about that. But when during that winter?

Here's the CBC segment. The entire thing is worth watching - it's uncanny how the questions about Trig's birth were laid out so fully by the CBC back on September 3rd. However, the footage we were interested in is roughly between 2:10 and 2:20.

Here are some screen shots from this footage:

This is from the 2:11 point in the video. Note that the furniture behind her is visible between her jacket and her scarf.

Here's another shot:

Again, it's clear there's no sign of impending motherhood here.

Unfortunately, we were never able to date this footage from available sources, and it got pushed to the back burner.

Until today. Why? Well, footage from the same date turned up very prominently at the beginning of Keith Olbermann's segment on Sarah Palin last night.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now, this struck me as odd. A curious choice to say the least. Why would a network, with access to literally hundreds of hours of stock footage of Gov. Palin from the election and since, as part of a major segment on a major show (Countdown with Keith Olbermann) use obscure and outdated footage of her from another network? And place it quite prominently IN the show? I don't have an answer. But to say that I find it intriguing is an understatement.

Here's a screen grab from this footage:

I think it should be obvious to everyone why we'd like to date this meeting.

So Who are These Folks?

2009-07-15T09:48:00.000-07:00

In the past, on several occasions, I've posted a photo and asked my alert readers for help in dating and/or placing the event. I have always been astonished at the speed in which we've gotten answers.

I have one today. These four people were present with Sarah Palin at a meeting at her office in Juneau we believe at some point during the winter of 2008. We have so far been unsuccessful in dating the meeting.

If any of our readers can identify any of these people it will help us date the meeting.

Thanks.

"The Governor's not a liar."

2009-07-14T11:23:00.000-07:00

The source of that succinct quote? Bill McAllister, Palin's former press secretary. The quote came from an article in the Anchorage Daily News on August 31, 2008, as reporter Kyle Hopkins tried to summarize the current "Baby Drama."

McAllister was an Anchorage TV reporter before working for Palin. He said Palin once approached him - before people knew she was pregnant - assuming he'd been hearing rumors.

"She said it's not true about Bristol," McAllister said.

At the time, the rumor would have been that Palin's daughter was pregnant.

How does McAllister know it's not true?
"The governor's not a liar....

Here, specifically, Gov. Palin is speaking directly to the rumors that Bristol had been pregnant and was Trig's mother (which - to digress - I have always wondered about Sarah Palin's thought process here, since in general it's a REAL bad idea to answer a question no one has asked, and McAllister was clear - Palin had approached him...). However, in general this has been an almost universal response to allegations that there might be "something" to the baby story. It's the fallback position, the ace in the hole. Can't explain why we have scores of pictures on which she doesn't look pregnant at all?

Sarah Palin is Trig's mom because Sarah Palin wouldn't lie.

Or how about: Can't explain how a stage of pregnancy that can only described as quite large on one set of photos was nevertheless described by flight attendants not even a week later as: not apparent from observation.

Sarah Palin is Trig's mom because Sarah Palin wouldn't lie.

Or how about: Why has no birth certificate ever been released? Why was the only "official" statement ever released by Cathy Baldwin Johnson a lame piece of crap put out by the campaign less than two hours before midnight on the last day of the election?

Sarah Palin is Trig's mom because Sarah Palin wouldn't lie.

Except she is a liar. I think this is so well-established now that no one can or will even attempt to call me on this.

With Palin's resignation - now ten days ago - some of the more glaring examples had been put on the back burner, but in the week period prior to her resignation she'd been called on the carpet, twice, for what could only be called "whoppers." And not only do these lies show a basic disregard for the truth, reports of them show a bizarrely blase attitude towards the truth once she was confronted. In both cases, Gov. Palin persisted in wanting to stick with the lie, even when she was informed by the campaign that they knew what was really going on.

The first has been widely reported: CBS has released emails between Palin and campaign staffers. Her supporters haven't really been willing to discuss this one; mention is oddly absent from C4P and some of the other pro Palin sites. Why, you ask? Well, in this case we have the actual email. We have Palin's written words, basically telling a big fat honkin' fib. No wigglin' out of this one, folks.

This exchange involved Todd's involvement in Alaska's "Independence Party," or AIP for short. (The AIP's basic raison d'etre is to encourage Alaska to secede from the Union. Period. Although I guess most Alaskans can be pretty cool about this (and, to be fair, apparently there WAS a bit of skulduggery back fifty years ago when the original vote went down, which a lot of good folks in Alaska have never forgotten), in the lower 48, the whole idea is a bit, as my kids say, "sketch." And down here south of the Mason-Dixon line, while all too many might still harbor some secret support for our comrades up north, here's a little tip for y'all: secession didn't work out too well for us. In fact, to be perfectly frank, it worked out right poorly.)

Apparently, Palin had seen a critical CNN report on TV one morning, and then later in the day there was a heckler and a sign or two at a rally. She shot off an email demanding that the campaign do something about it, a suggestion that was rebuffed: it was a non-issue. Why attract attention to something that wasn't really getting much press? In addition, this was all happening on the day of the final debate, a day in which the campaign planned to launch their "big weapon:" Joe the Plumber. So obviously they didn't want anything to distract from that hotly-anticipated moment.

However, that response didn't satisfy Ms. Barracuda, who shot back another email again insisting that something be done - and at this point tried to fudge the story in order to get her way. Todd, you see, wasn't really a member of the AIP for seven years - he'd just checked the wrong box. I mean, that's plausible, right? Could happen to anyone. He thought he was checking a box which said he was "independent" (i.e., unaffiliated with a political party) instead of a member of the Alaskan Independence Party.

Except it was a complete fabrication. According to multiple sources, the box which Todd checked SAYS "Alaskan Independence Party," not, for example, "Independent" or something similar which would be easy to confuse. The campaign staffer who wrote back to Palin stated baldly that "Todd was a member for seven years. If this is incorrect we need to understand the discrepancy. The statement you are suggesting be released would be inaccurate."

At this point, Palin dropped the exchange, and no more was said. Todd remained a secessionist, and Palin remained a ... well, you know.

The second incident was strikingly similar. However, reports of this incident contain a little "Easter Egg" that so far I have seen no one else comment on.

In order to appear in tune with every-day folk, Palin - early in the campaign - told at least one interviewer that she and Todd had not had health insurance early in their marriage. During debate prep, she brought this up again, wanting to practice it as a debating point. However, the campaign then checked with Todd who set the record straight: they'd always had catastrophic insurance. What IS catastrophic insurance? It's regular insurance just with a really high deductible.

When confronted, initially, according to Vanity Fair, Palin stuck to her guns. Catastrophic insurance wasn't "real" insurance, and therefore didn't need to be revealed.

This slippery slope tale is similar to the first story regarding the AIP. Caught in a lie? No problem. Just keep lying - with a handy little rationalization at the ready in case you're called on it.

But what I find really interesting, what jumped off the page at me (and so far I have seen no one else comment on this) is the fact that someone in the campaign, after being told something by Sarah, went and DOUBLE CHECKED WITH TODD. I mean, how 1950s. "Let's just ask your husband, dear, shall we?" I mean, WTF? Am I the only one who finds this really really odd?

Read between the lines here: By the time of Palin's debate (first week in October), the campaign was already so concerned about her truthfulness and reliability, that a simple statement ("We didn't have insurance when we were first married,") which should have been able to be taken at face value, was fact-checked WITH HER HUSBAND. They must have had profoundly serious doubts about her.

Yet, to the outside observer, it was business as usual and smiley faces and glad hands: the Republican Party and John McCain continued to reassure the American people that this person whom they had apparently stopped trusting on even very simple statements was someone that we should still consider a credible candidate for vice president, qualified and ready to take over should something happen to McCain.

And now - since the resignation - yet another obfuscation. It's been covered so many places, (Huffington Post for starters) that I will rehash only briefly. In short, one argument Gov. Palin made for resigning was that all the ethics investigations were costing the citizens of Alaska money. According to Palin, money was being taken away from: troopers and roads and teachers and fish research.

OK, when you stop laughing about that improbable list, read on.

The fact is, it's completely false. State of Alaska Department of Law attorneys and employees are paid a salary. They get their pay checks whether they are dealing with Sarah Palin's ethics complaints, consumer protection issues, mine rulings, or even if they are sitting at their desks with their thumbs up their rumps playing World of Warcraft.

So while it is fair to say that these lawyers are spending their time on ethics complaints instead of something else (possibly in Alaska's better interests), it is patently false that these ethics complaints are diverting funds from troopers or roads or fish research.

So tell me again how we know Trig is Sarah's...

When I was Living There...

2009-07-12T08:43:00.000-07:00

On July 9th, Levi Johnston gave a press conference in his lawyer's office in Alaska.

He states clearly and explicitly that he was living with the Palins before she was selected as McCain's running mate. What? BEFORE late August 2008? Why would he be living there then?

1. He's lying. Palin's spokesperson, Meghan Stapleton, has already released a statement claiming this.

"It is interesting to learn Levi is working on a piece of fiction while honing his acting skills," Palin family spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

The Palins have steadfastly denied that Levi ever "lived" with them, though it's been reported in numerous publications, including People magazine, which has over the months tended to be quite favorable to Palin.

2. He's telling the truth. So why would he have been living with the Palins prior to August 2008? Because they liked Levi and were cool about Levi and Bristol's relationship and openly allowed their daughter's boyfriend to spend the night? OR Because Levi and Bristol were jointly caring for a child who was not born on December 27, 2008?

Since Levi began going public in spring of 2009, thing just have not added up. There have been lots of little slip-ups. Sherry Johnston described to People magazine on (or around) January 5th how Levi and Bristol had spent their first "weeks" as parents. Only problem was that, as of January 5th, Tripp supposedly was barely a week old, had not even been home from the hospital a full week, and simultaenously the Anchorage Daily News was reporting that Levi was not even IN Wasilla.

When Levi was describing to Larry King how they told Sarah that Bristol was pregnant, he very clearly slips up and starts to say she was sixteen... then quickly corrects it to say "eighteen." Except she was neither, IF the Tripp pregnancy was "as reported." If Tripp was born December 27th 2008, and Levi stayed with the Palins to care for him, Bristol would have been 17 when she got pregnant. Here's the video... watch to around the four minute point. Look at Levi's eyes when he makes the slip up. He knows exactly what he said.

It's been stated in numerous places that Levi was actively involved with the Palins after the campaign right up until after Tripp's birth in late December. But then other places, Levi has stated that things started to fall apart "right after the campaign." And when Sarah Palin was interviewed in her home by Matt Lauer on November 11th, he asks her point blank about Levi and Bristol's plans. She won't even answer the question and is so cold to the topic that it's as if a door has slammed. It's more than clear that things were already off - way off - between Bristol and Levi as of that point. Yet ... he lived there - in December - prior to Tripp's birth?

Things that make you go HMMMM...

How to Lie with Statistics: Response to Progressive Alaska Part 2

2009-07-07T13:27:00.000-07:00

With Sarah Palin's resignation, the direction of this blog has taken a temporary detour. It has been impossible over the last five days to keep the focus on "Babygate," and ignore the larger implications of her resignation and the "hoopla" surrounding it. And I don't think anyone wants me to.

Is Sarah Palin still a viable national entity? I do not believe so. Her history of quitting is quite striking: she quit as mayor of Wasilla to run for Lt. Governor of Alaska (a race she lost.) She quit a major Alaskan appointment, that of chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Although a great deal has been made of this "protest" resignation, the reasoning is eerily similar to her resignation as governor. She could be more effective from outside of the commission than actually on it. But numerous people in Alaska have put a more mundane spin on this resignation. The job was reportedly a real full-time job with real full-time work. She was expected to produce, not just be a figurehead; she just was not up to it.

And now - with a year and a half left as governor she quit for reasons that she stated as mostly personal: things like adults being mean to Trig. (Whether her stated reasons are all there are is of course open for question, but for now let's take her at her word.)

But that still leaves us with the initial question of this blog, and as I said in the "Sarah Quits; We Won't" post several days ago, I do not intend to let this issue slide. I believe that there still is enough of a chance that Palin might emerge on the national stage that the truth about Trig's birth must come to light, once and for all. I still believe that the elements of the Republican Party that gave us Sarah Palin and kept her on the ticket (while - I strongly suspect - becoming aware at some point in the campaign that she had faked the pregnancy) must be held accountable.

I am continuing now with the multi-part post I began last week, before the resignation, in which I am attempting to consider a very long post written by Lee Tompkins, a labor and delivery nurse, last January, and reprinted several weeks ago by the blog Progressive Alaska.

I have received some criticism for doing this, including a comment from someone I respect, accusing me of doing nothing but "addressing nonsense arguments from a moron first posted months ago." But I disagree. These "nonsense arguments" form the basis of why some very reasonable people, who I do not think ARE morons, and who do not support Gov. Palin in general are still not on board with the idea that she faked a pregnancy, duping both Alaskans and the American people. And the topic of today's post - the Down Syndrome "proof" that Trig must be Sarah's - is one of the cornerstones of this.

__________________

Here's the link to Part 1 in case I have new readers who have not seen it.

This is the second part of my very long post, addressing the points raised in Lee Tompkins' article. In this installment, I intend to (try to) debunk one of the most persistent (and incorrect) assumptions in this whole issue: that Trig's Down Syndrome virtually proves that Sarah is his mother. I do apologize for all the math and numbers here, and realize that at times it's difficult to follow. But the problem is that this statistical proof is cited so often without anyone even understanding the numbers, that they only way to reasonably confront it is with the calculators on the desk.

A couple of Google searches and it's not difficult to figure out that the likelihood of a Down's pregnancy in a 44-year old woman is 25 times greater than that of a teenager. Of course, overall more Down's babies are born in the younger age groups but that is reflective of the greater numbers of pregnancies occurring in younger women than older women. That statistic alone should be convincing enough, but it is probably not.

The writer's opinion here is clear. This statistic (i.e, that Sarah had a 25 times greater chance of having a baby with Down Syndrome) alone should virtually prove to us that Trig must be Sarah's.

This "proof" of Trig's parentage has haunted those of us searching for the truth since day one. Often people who appear to know virtually nothing about the "Who's Your Mommy?" controversy (except perhaps that there is one), all can unfailingly summon this one "fact": Trig MUST be Sarah's because older women have babies with Down Syndrome. I've seen it a thousand times in comments on blogs, gotten hundreds of emails that say the same thing. Trig has Down Syndrome; this proves Trig is Sarah's. Case closed.

What is the reality?

It IS more likely, much more likely in fact, that a woman over 40, on a given pregnancy, will conceive a child with Down Syndrome than a woman less than 20. No dispute. But every year in the U.S. about 300 babies with Down Syndrome are born to women under 20. Not a huge number, but not insignificant either. This is about the same number as babies born deaf to women under 20 (who have no family history of deafness.) Would we disbelieve the story if we are told that a teen mother would have a deaf child?

Furthermore, those who repeat this statistical argument ignore another, equally powerful one in the opposite direction, one that I have never heard confronted head-on, with real numbers, regarding this situation, and that is that Sarah Palin, at 43, had a far FAR lower chance of ever having a baby at all.

Natural fertility drops sharply after age 40, a fact that is now nearly lost in the perception of the general public. Every week, it seems, yet another celebrity well into her forties has a baby. Several in the last few years (Geena Davis and Nancy Grace to name two) have been quite near, even at, fifty. But many - probably the majority - of these women have had these babies with fertility assistance: injections to stimulate ovulation, hormonal support after conception to compensate for a body that is really too old to be having children, and in many (perhaps most) cases where the mother is over 42 or 43, the use of donor eggs. However, these private details are typically not made public, so the public knows only that a baby has been born. They have no realistic clue just how difficult and expensive it was to achieve that.

In addition, women are routinely counseled to stay on contraceptives into their late forties, yet are only rarely advised by their physicians as to how low their actual chances of becoming pregnant are. Because of this, the erroneous perceptions that older mothers conceive often and easily and that pregnancy after forty is likely are firmly ensconced into our national consciousness. (This is much to the dismay and sad disappointment of many women in their late thirties and early forties, who have delayed childbearing and are now discovering that the effects that aging has on fertility often cannot be overcome even with help.)

In reality, what are the chances that a 43 year old woman, who is presumably practicing some sort of contraception and who is not "trying" to get pregnant, in fact will get pregnant at all and then carry that child to near term? The odds are actually extremely poor.

Women who are over 40 face a double whammy: fertility drops every year, and simultaneously rates of miscarriage rise.

Consider the following:
1. At age 40, a woman who is demonstrably fertile still only has a 1 in 20 chance (5%) of getting pregnant in any given cycle. A teen has a 20-30% chance of getting pregnant in a given cycle. And that's age 40. Sarah Palin was 3 1/2 years older than this.
2. At age 40, even using in vitro fertilization, (involving medical assistance with precise timing and hormonal support) the pregnancy rate per cycle is only 10%.
3. The chances of a woman over 40 who is trying to get pregnant via in vitro using her own "old" eggs is one/sixth of that of getting pregnant with younger "donor" eggs. In fact, most clinics will not even use the eggs of women over 40 because the failure rate is so unacceptably high.
4. 50% of pregnancies in women 42-43 years of age end in miscarriage, compared with only 10% for women less than 30.
5. By age 40, 33% of previously fertile couples are infertile, and this rises to 90% by age 45. At age 43 1/2 (the age at which Sarah Palin is alleged to have become pregnant) the chances of her even still being fertile at all were only about 1 in 3. Read that again. Statistics tell us that Sarah Palin had a 66% chance of not being able to get pregnant at all.

Plus - the Palins have been clear that the pregnancy was unexpected, that their baby-having days were over, and that they were not trying to have a child. This can only mean one thing: some sort of family planning method was being used. This would have cut Sarah Palin's already-low chances of becoming pregnant much farther. Oral contraceptives are 95% plus successful in preventing pregnancy. Even condoms are supposedly 85-90% effective in preventing pregnancy if used correctly.

So let's whip out the calculators here. For this little calculation, I am going to ignore the issue of contraception. We can't know what sort of birth control anyone in this equation was using or how consistently and rigorously it was used. So, to simplify things, I am going to, using statistics, attempt to answer the following question. If you have a 43 year old woman and a 17 year old woman who are both "letting nature take its course" (i.e., both sexually active and neither using contraceptives) , what are the relative chances that, in a given single month, each will get pregnant and carry the baby to term?

In a given monthly cycle, at age 40, a fertile woman has a 5% (1 in 20) chance of conceiving. I could not find a comparable statistic for a 43 year old, so we'll use 5% while stipulating that the actual number is certainly lower for a 43 year old. However, don't forget that this is a fertile woman. By age 43, 2/3rds of previously fertile woman are infertile. This reduces that ACTUAL monthly chances of conceiving for a 43 year old to 5% x .33 or 1.66%. A random sexually active 43 year old woman not practicing contraception has only a 1 in 60 chance of getting pregnant each month.

A 17 year old has a 20-30% chance of conceiving per month. For simplicity, let's split that down the middle and say 25%. A random sexually active 17 year old woman not practicing contraception has a 1 in 4 chance of getting pregnant per month.

In other words - the seventeen year old's chances of getting pregnant in a given month are 15 times higher.

But that's not the end of the story because now, the much higher rates of miscarriage come into play.

The 43 year old has at least a 50% of chance of miscarrying the baby. This cuts the success rate in half, to .8%. The chance that a 43 year old woman will get pregnant in a single month and carry the child to term is less than 1 in 100.

The 17 year old, meanwhile, has a 7% chance of miscarriage. (Sources cite numbers any where from 5% to 10% - I am splitting the difference.) This gives us a successful pregnancy rate per month for the 17 year old of 23%. The chance that a 17 year old woman will get pregnant in a single month and carry the child to term is 23 in 100.

.8% for the 43 year old versus 23% for the 17 year old. 29 times more likely. Ironically, quite close to the often quoted statistic that Down Syndrome is 25 times more likely in the older mother. So read that again. Understand what it really says. Yes, Down Syndrome is 25 times more likely in an older mother, but SUCCESSFUL PREGNANCY is 29 times more likely in the younger mother.

And don't forget, this result is for women NOT using contraceptives (Palin almost certainly was) plus this result was obtained using fertility rates for 40 year olds ( Palin was 43.) Both of these factors would reduce this already - low number even farther in this specific case.

Younger women can have babies with Down Syndrome, though it's rare. Older women can have babies with no medical assistance or support, though it's rare. But what the statistics do show is that those who USE Down Syndrome rates to argue that Trig must be Sarah's are totally missing the other bus: We could just as easily use overall fertility rates to argue that Trig must be Bristol's.

So return to the paragraph I quoted from Lee Tompkins article to start this post, now rewritten:

A couple of Google searches and it's not difficult to figure out that the likelihood of a pregnancy carried to term in a 17-year old woman is 29 times greater than that of a 43 year old. That statistic alone should be convincing enough, but it is probably not.

Feels funny when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

Now, to be explicitly clear: statistics are merely a guideline. Statistics do not prove anything either way. Trig has Down Syndrome. This in no way proves he is Sarah's. Trig exists. This in no way proves he is Bristol's (or any other younger mother's.)

And that's what needs to be taken away from this post.

PART 3 COMING SOON

Going Out on a Limb Here

2009-07-06T06:09:00.000-07:00

Like most of us who have followed Sarah Palin's rise (and now fall) over the last ten months (joining our colleagues in Alaska who have been watching more or less in horror for two additional years) the events of the last seventy two hours have taken our breath away. My good friend at Mudflats tried to post a summary of all that has happened, and ended up concluding:

Between the news of Palin’s resignation, the reaction of the mainstream media, the blogosphere, the Tweets, the Facebook updates, the threats of legal action against bloggers and the press, the statements from attorneys, and all the rest, I don’t think a single person on the face of the Earth could do a real wrap-up.

She's right of course.

But I am going out on a limb here. Something doesn't add up for me. I know that yesterday I was in there with the rest of them talking about Housegate and IRS and FBI and, to make it clear, I think there is some sort of investigation on-going. Rumors are rarely complete fabrications (where there's smoke, there's either fire or smoke, so it's usually something) and the rumors of a financial investigation into Palin have been so loud and so persistent coming from Wasilla that it's hard for me to believe personally that there is not something there.

But that having been said, again, somethin' just ain't right. Palin assured us that she had been planning this for weeks, but if that was the case, why did Todd leave town for the fishing season and then have to fly home to be there on Friday? (Sarah says this in her speech, though that line is not in the official transcript.) Why did Sarah "Tweet" as recently as 3:53 PM on June 29:

I dont support Waxman-Markey bill; I'll work w/AK Senators & others to address concerns, lacks flexibility needed to protect enviro & develp

and at 10:59 AM on Jul 1:

Congratulations to Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan as he is sworn in today! I look forward to working with him.

Does this sound to you like someone who is on the verge of resgining? It doesn't really to me.

Consider the following:

1. Todd himself was not back in Wasilla until Thursday night. Here it is in Palin's own words: "And I'm thankful that Todd flew in last night from commercial fishing grounds in Bristol Bay to stand by my side, as always."
2. Meghan Stapleton, Palin's poodle, who has been at her side almost continually for months was not even in Alaska on Friday. She was in New York.
3. Sarah had just hired a new press secretary in the past month, long time friend (and author of great reads "Why Men Hate Going to Church" and "How Women Help Men Find God") David Murrow. Snark aside, reading Murrow's info, he seems like a pretty straight-forward up-front nice guy. How bizarre, even cruel, that she'd bring someone new on if she were seriously contemplating leaving within weeks. Murrow posted to his own social networking site on Wednesday that he was "contemplating life's ironies."
4. Family members got no notice until the night before. According to People magazine, Todd called his father on Thursday night, and asked him if he could be at the Palin's home for a press conference on Friday, but even he was not told - the night before - that Sarah was resigning. Jim Palin declined, stating he had another commitment (which appears to be "fishing" from the People article, but hey, this is Alaska).
5. Senator Mark Begich who met with her on Wednesday for 45 minutes has stated she gave no indication whatsoever.
6. Sean Parnell, the Lieutenant Governor who will be taking over for her on July 26th, was not informed until Wednesday evening. Again, if this was in the works for weeks, how bizarre it would be for him not to be in the inner circle.

All of these things tell me one consistent story. The decision was abrupt, very abrupt. I am speculating that there was a "trigger" of some sort, and that trigger was sudden and very recent. Her closest inner circle, even her family members, were in the dark until the final hour. And I - and many others - have observed that at the news conference, she appeared ragged, disjointed, almost frantic. She gasped. Her speech delivery, which is never the best, was positively scary.

And at least once, she reminded us that she was being truthful. What? Who had suggested that she wasn't being truthful?

So why? What is it?

There are rumors of a fight between Bristol and Sarah in the previous week over Bristol's unwillingness to continue to do publicity "tours." Is this code for unwillingness to continue the charade about Babygate?

Fellow blogger Celtic Diva had finally raised the $5000.00 plus dollars required by the state for "photocopying costs" associated with receiving Palin's emails and has turned in the official request. A lot of people (myself included) have wondered if there is something in those emails that will be the nail in the coffin, even though, interestingly, Ms. Diva herself doubts that that is the case.

And last - but I don't think least - Levi Johnston is in New York, in the final stages of negotiating a book deal. I have been assured privately that once the deal is inked new information will be made available. I do not know what that information is, but I can make some real good guesses - and so can all of you.

I think this might be a very big week.

**UPDATE**

Tweet, tweet! I've succumbed to calls to join Twitter and have now linked it in my sidebar on the right hand of the page.

The username is palinsdeception

Thanks for those who've urged me to do this and to readers like Mel, who pointed to the NYT op-ed I just referenced in my second official "tweet."

Some Musings for a Sunday Morning

2009-07-05T06:57:00.001-07:00

It just gets more and more interesting. Yesterday, Gov. Palin's legal counsel released a sharply worded statement denying that the Palins were under federal investigation for criminal wrongdoing. I am sure of few of this blog's readers are wondering if I know anything about this.

Here's my answer:

I have over the months developed numerous contacts in Alaska. Over the past 6-8 weeks, I have heard a very consistent story. Palin was under investigation, and it had nothing to do with "babygate." It was big, it was federal, and it was financial. Is this true, or is it a rumor, spread from one source, designed to harm the Palins? I don't know. I will, however, add the following comments.

1. I have received many tips during the time I have been running the blog and website. Some have been worth following up, most have been nonsense. But three separate contacts stand out, and that is why, IF this turns out to be something to do with the building of the house, I will not be at all surprised. These three were all surprisingly similar. They were all Wasilla/Palmer/"Valley" residents. I know they are not the same person three times, since in all cases, the people were not only willing but EAGER to provide me with all personal information, name, address, phone number, where they worked. Hell, they would have given me shoe size if I asked, I suspect. All three checked out. And all three told me basically the same thing. They could not help me with the baby story, but what I needed to look at were the issues surrounding the building of the house. At least one of these tips came in before the election in November.

Here's a quote from an email in February. "Forget Trig. The house will put her in jail."

In each case, I thanked the person for the information, but told them that the baby story was my focus, and that I felt I did not have the time, financial resources, or geographic ability to look into this. I referred them, in each case, to someone in Alaska that I felt could help them. If anything came of any of these people, I do not know.

But I can say, with absolute certainly, that long before June 2009, Wasilla residents were willing to go on record - with their real names and phone numbers and personal info - that there were irregularities, and serious ones, about the building of the Palins' house in 2002. Whether they were lying, I do not know. Whether they were wrong, I do not know. But this issue is not some fantasy, created by pajama clad bloggers, after Palin's resignation two days ago.

And this, going on record with a real name, is something I have never been able to get anyone in Wasilla who knows anything about the baby to do.

2. However, the rumors that I have heard have all consistently said that the investigation is federal. Irregularities with building materials and permits in Wasilla would not be federal, it would be state, as far as I can see, though I am not a lawyer or an accountant and perhaps there is something I do not understand. The F.B.I. has released a statement saying that they are not investigating Palin. This, theoretically, would leave the I.R.S. True? Not true? I don't know, and I want to make it clear that I do not, but that's the bottom line. If it IS federal, and the FBI is not involved, then the only plausible alternative is I.R.S.

Here's a second musing for Sunday morning:

I find it beyond curious that after nearly ten months of myself and others stating, with various degrees of certainty, that Palin's birth story was bogus, not one person has ever even been threatened with any sort of legal action. (There were rumors that Palin threatened the Anchorage Daily News with a lawsuit in January, but as far as I know that was never confirmed, and she certainly never had her legal counsel release any sort of public statement on the matter.) Numerous people have gone so far as to call Sarah Palin a liar openly.

And for those who say that it's because the birth story is below Palin's radar, I say, that's a load of horse hooey. Palin has referred to it in interviews numerous times. It is very clear that these stories have bothered her a great deal.

Truth is an absolute defense against libel. You can't just "sue for libel," and state that the other party is lying. You have to prove it. The Palins would be forced to produce a birth certificate, medical records, and probably a DNA test. The defense would be able to subpoena Cathy Baldwin Johnson (YAY!), the flight attendants on the airplane, possibly school records for both Bristol and Willow, any and all previously unreleased photos and video from the conference in Texas... lots and lots and lots of wonderful things.

Perhaps all of the rumors about criminal investigation and Housegate are false. Maybe Sarah Palin did resign as governor simply because, as she said, the negative media scrutiny had pushed her family over the edge and she believes that because of it she can no longer be effective for Alaska.

But sue anyone over "Babygate?" I'm waiting.

Palin quits. We won't.

2009-07-04T06:38:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin's unexpected and bizarre announcement that she is resigning her office as Governor of Alaska has raised many questions. Is she quitting because she can make more money in the private sector? Is she quitting because - unable to take the heat from pajama clad bloggers - she is fleeing the kitchen? Could it be Levi's book deal? Or - as some have indicated - is she is quitting ahead of a looming legal scandal.

Our loyal readers have been abuzz pondering these questions. And they've had one for us, too: Does Sarah's resignation mean the search for the truth behind Trig Palin's birth is over?

The answer to that question is a resounding "No!"

Here's why: Covering criminal scandals is squarely in the media's comfort zone. After all, shady accounting and redirected funds - should that be the case - are far easier to question and report on than gestational and birth issues. They involve adults doing bad things, not children manipulated and victimized by power-hungry parents.

I and many others are convinced that elements of the mainstream media either have known or strongly suspected the truth about Trig's birth all along and have become strange bedfellows with conservative elements of the GOP who also know the truth.

The media and even some Republicans will likely both breathe a sigh of relief if the current rumor turns out to be true. Criminal activity will be the death knell of their rising-star-turned-party-embarrassment. She will be done, without their having to wade into that other scandal - the one I'm convinced they know about but are too squeamish to reveal.

But as Sarah weakens, I'm convinced that those who feared her will become more bold, more willing to tell what they know about her claims of birthing Trig. If they do, at some point the media will no longer be able to ignore it. And I think it will prove to be a far bigger scandal that even the one we're hearing rumors about now.

Criminal activity is one thing; passing off someone else's baby as yours for political gain is something else. If it can be proven that Sarah did not give birth to Trig, then the question will then be "What did the GOP know and when did they know it?"

That's a whopper of a question, and the answer might not only irreparably tarnish Sarah Palin, but also destroy the careers of those who selected her and glibly reassured the nation that she had the experience, character and temperament to lead.

If that's the case, the rumored criminal charges may be the tip of the iceberg; the really damaging part may be what's beneath the surface, that thing they're still refusing to see: Babygate.

That's why we won't quit, even if Sarah has.

Palin Resigns

2009-07-03T12:49:00.001-07:00

It is surreal. She's resigning.

I am watching Palin's speech. She is hanging on by the ragged edge. She's babbling, gasping, rambling, making no sense whatsoever. I've been watching Palin for ten months. She has never sounded more unhinged to me.

"The world apparently needs more Trigs." is among some of the more bizarre things she said.

Now we've switched from the basketball analogy to the football field. No hockey analogy yet.

Updates will follow.

I think the iceberg is about to hit.

**UPDATE**

Here's Sarah Palin's official announcement from the governor's Web site, from which she also gleaned much of her speech.

Here is the press release.

**UPDATE II**

Meg Stapleton weighs in and all I can say is, with friends like these does Sarah really needs enemies? This makes two rambling, bizarre explanations of Sarah's decision.

**UPDATE III**
The videos are now uploaded to YouTube

Pulling A Palin: My Response to Progressive Alaska Part One

2009-06-29T13:26:00.000-07:00

Over the week or so, I will post on this blog a multi part series. Today's installment is the first.

In January, Alaskan Blogger Celtic Diva published a "guest post" by a Labor and Delivery nurse named Lee Tompkins entitled The Birth of a Conspiracy; Delivering the Real Issue. Several days ago, a second Alaskan blog, Progressive Alaska, reprinted this post in toto. The theme of this post was simple: both the original writer and Phil at Progressive Alaska believe that the focus on Palin's birth story should be squarely on what they consider the "real issue," which is the very poor judgment she showed in traveling while allegedly in labor with Trig. They believe that Palin's terrible choices so endangered her child that on that basis alone she should be disqualified from any serious consideration for public office.

Both believe Sarah Palin's birth story, specifically that Trig was born to Sarah on April 18, 2008, after a trip back from Texas that I have chosen to call "The Wild Ride." (For those who don't know, I based that moniker on a quaint Disney theme park ride, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, still operational at Disneyland (and, according to Wikipedia, one of the few remaining attractions that was present at the 1955 opening) but removed from Disney World in 1998. The concept of the ride was based on Kenneth Grahame's children's book The Wind in the Willows, from which Disney had made a cartoon in 1949.)

While Phil at Progressive Alaska obviously continues to take this position (he reprinted this post barely a week ago) i.e., that Trig is Sarah's and was born April 18, 2009, from private conversation with Celtic Diva (again, original source of the post last January though she did not write it), while she may be unsure of the whole truth regarding Trig's birth, she now personally entertains at least some doubts that it occurred as Palin reported. Would she, today, late June 2009, post Ms. Tompkins' guest blog? I don't know but I intend to ask her.

Most of Palin's supporters will not intelligently debate the evidence at all. Their tactics are few - but very consistent - whenever the pregnancy story is discussed. It takes only a moment for a reasonable-sounding authoritative voice, without citing any specifics, to label a theory like ours "irresponsible, incorrect, poorly researched, sensationalistic," or - simply - "bad." It takes much longer to refute these charges. Points, often boring ones, must be made individually. Specific examples, requiring serious research into dates, times, places, and statements, must be discussed. Obstetric minutiae is of little interest to most people, and actually unpleasant to discuss for many.

These are some of the favorite tactics used:
1. Their favorite red herring is Obama's birth certificate. "There's the real story," we are assured solemnly. There may be a story there. I don't know - I haven't looked into it at all. But what I do know is that regardless of where, when, or to whom Barack Obama was born, it's got nothing to do with Sarah Palin.
2. A tactic of "redirection" is employed whenever specific obstetrical facets are considered. Everyone seems to know someone that "never looked pregnant with a fifth child," or whose water broke and she didn't go into labor. All that tells us is that it is "possible" that some aspects of Sarah Palin's story might be true based on others' similar experiences. It does not prove that they are.
3. They simply refuse to believe the evidence in front of their eyes. Shown documented photographs from unimpeachable sources, these folks simply allege (with no proof whatsoever) that the documentation is wrong or suspect and then, because they cannot "verify" the source of the evidence, they will not discuss anything further.
4. The last bastion: Sarah's story is true because Sarah wouldn't lie.

When one (or all) of the four tactics above are employed, it's impossible to have an honest debate with a legitimate exchange of ideas. With Ms. Tompkins post, I can. I can debate her reasoning with my own. What I intend to do here is to go through Ms. Tompkins' post point by point and do my best to, if not refute each one, then at least put forth why I think the real evidence indicates something different: specifically, that Sarah Palin did NOT give birth to Trig Palin on April 18th, 2008. I intend to quote large sections (indicated by blocks) of the original post, though not all of it, just because of length considerations.

Let me say categorically that I think the widely disseminated rumor that Sarah Palin is not the mother of her child Trig is totally false, although I know many well-informed and well-educated people who believe otherwise, and I certainly understand their theory.

I'm going to spend some time discussing the reasons why I think the Palin faked pregnancy story is not true, but first I think it is of interest to comment on why this story has really caught hold of the imagination of many.

... the general public disliked Sarah Palin and when the bizarre circumstances of the birth of her child Trig became generally known, the public wanted to believe that she was capable of faking a pregnancy in order to bolster her standing as a "family values" candidate by avoiding the baggage of a daughter who was about to become an unwed teenage mother. Avoiding that didn't quite work out for Palin as it turned out, but that didn't stop a vocal minority of conspiracy theorists to believe Palin capable of such chicanery earlier. The public wanted to believe the worst of Sarah Palin.

I've stated this before, but I will repeat it for the purposes of this post. I have done more than anyone regarding "Babygate," and while I can't speak for others, I can certainly speak for myself. My initial interest in the story had nothing to do with wanting to "believe the worst" about or discrediting Gov. Palin. I'd never heard of her. I was an Obama supporter and doubt that anything could have made me vote for the Republican ticket but I certainly did not dislike Sarah Palin on any sort of visceral level. In fact when I first heard that a mother of five had been chosen, I was rather thrilled and very very happy for her. I was eager to learn more about her.

In an ironic sense, I set out to defend her, feeling that she specifically and women in general are not well-served when such an unlikely and implausible childbirth story is disseminated. My initial interest stemmed from my desire to set the record straight. Some dim-witted young male reporter who probably barely understood how babies get in much less how they get out, I assumed, had gotten his facts wrong. No experienced mother, having had four prior births, would fly ten hours at 35 weeks while leaking amniotic fluid. Ludicrous. Crazy. Didn't happen.

This was my original premise and it had nothing to do with Sarah Palin at all. It was only after I understood that this WAS her story and she WAS sticking to it, that my B.S. meter went off the chart.

....the evidence very strongly suggests is that Palin was guilty of recklessly endangering the life of her unborn child, which to me is far worse than faking a pregnancy, to protect her political ambition and perhaps the reputation of her daughter. It's just not as sexy of a story, not one the public could latch onto with such fervor. Discussing ruptured membranes ain't exactly something to talk about at the dinner table. And since "life imitates art more than art imitates life" it's highly doubtful the Desperate Housewives' writers will be opening next season with one of the wives flying transcontinentally with preterm premature rupture of membranes.

The public couldn't understand why anyone would do anything other than take the greatest of care and every absolute precaution with the health of a special needs child, whose parent should have been their greatest advocate and protector.

The faked pregnancy theory was easier to believe. And so it was born...

I agree, I think recklessly endangering a child would be worse than faking a pregnancy. Much worse in fact. Where we differ is that I don't think Palin actually did that.

I do not believe that Sarah Palin, under any circumstances, would have risked giving birth on an airplane. Whether she would have been motivated to avoid this by concern for her child (hopefully) or fear of criticism and embarrassment doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is that the consequences of giving birth under such circumstances probably would have been career-ending.

I do not think she would have taken this risk. More to the point, I do not believe she DID take this risk. She was absolutely positive she would not have a baby on the airplane. And how could she be positive? The same way I am positive every time I fly that I will not have a baby on an airplane. I am not pregnant.

We are "working" this story knowing how it ends. We know that Sarah Palin did NOT have a child on an airplane on April 17th 2008. But at 2 PM that afternoon, when Sarah Palin would have been walking down that jetway, she could NOT have known what the next ten hours would hold. If Sarah Palin was 35 weeks pregnant on April 17th, given her obstetric history, not only was it possible she would give birth within ten hours of her membranes rupturing, it was probable. She would had to have guessed, getting on the airplane, that there was a very fair chance she'd have the baby in the air.

She should have known that the odds were against her, and if she did not, any credible doctor would have made it immediately, explicitly, abundantly clear. Several different versions of how much contact she had with her doctor and when that contact occurred on that day have circulated. But if Sarah Palin had been pregnant and had been leaking amniotic fluid, no doctor in the world would have ever told her it was alright even to consider getting on an airplane. Any physician would have made it clear that, if you're leaking amniotic fluid, you have a very high chance of having the baby before you get back to Alaska, certainly BETTER THAN 50/50. That information would have stopped Palin cold. Let's be reasonable. It would stop anyone.

The primary risk she would never take is to her own public image. She cares about what people think - very much. No professional woman - and certainly not the narcissistic governor of Alaska - would have risked for a second the absolutely appalling level of scrutiny and social embarrassment that would have resulted if she had given birth on the airplane... and that is if things came out well. If her preterm baby had been harmed by the choice, she could have been charged with child endangerment and prosecuted!

I have personally seen a baby born after two hours of membrane rupture and one - yes you're reading right - ONE contraction. Palin had boasted, prior to April 18th, about how easy her birth had been with Piper six years earlier, reminding people that after Piper had been born, she'd gone back to work the next day. Sarah Palin may not know the ins and outs of African politics, but she's a practical-minded woman who had given birth four times. She knows where babies come from and just exactly what is involved in getting them out. Do THAT on an airplane? Never. Not in a million years did she chance it.

I have never looked at a map and checked proximity of the hotel where Palin was staying in Texas to a hospital, but in a large urban area, surely she could not have been more than, say, ten minutes away from a good hospital where she could have gone in a hurry. I can accept - and always have - that someone in Palin's position might try to give the speech. MIGHT, though the image of an amniotic fluid "leak" turning into a full-fledged rupture while on stage certainly would have dissuaded me personally. (If you wonder what I'm talking about, dump approximately one and a half quarts of yellowish pinkish kinda funky smelling liquid between YOUR legs all at once. Now picture this happening WHILE giving a speech to other governors. Hmmm. Sort of wrecks the professional aura, doesn't it?)

But no one will ever convince me - ever! - that the image-conscious governor of Alaska risked having to lie down in public, spread her legs, and grunting and panting in a messy puddle of amniotic fluid, mucous, blood, urine and possibly either the baby's excrement, her own, or both, push her baby out on the carpet in the aisle. Risked her own health and her baby's. Risked the public criticism she would have come under for inconveniencing hundreds of other passengers. And taken this chance not once, but twice, on two separate four hour flights.

Would she ever have been able to overcome the eye rolling and snickers? I don't think so. "Oh yeah, Sarah Palin. She's that Governor that had a baby in first class. YUCK YUCK YUCK. Good thing it wasn't coach. HAR HAR HAR." "Didjya hear the one about the Governor that had the baby..." And on and on and on. Millions of people who had never heard of Sarah Palin would have, all at once, and not in a good way. "Pulling a Palin" (or something comparable) probably would have become - for generations - a synonym for: stupidest choice imaginable.

My "comeback" to Ms. Tompkins is that I believe that the faked pregnancy theory (which of course means she was never actually at risk for having a baby on the plane) is in fact far more plausible than suggesting that she risked the incredible level of scrutiny and criticism, possibly career ending, that she would have come under if she'd given birth somewhere over Canada.

And consider this: If you are going to put this forward - that Sarah Palin recklessly endangered the life of her child - you're going to have to be able to offer some plausible explanation for why she did it. That has never happened. Sarah Palin has NEVER offered any credible or even remotely believable explanation as to WHY. WHAT was her utterly compelling reason for getting on the airplane? WHY did she chance this medically risky and humiliating scenario?

So that her child could be born in Alaska.

This is the only reason she has ever offered. So that her child could be born in Alaska. (Or to quote the succinct Todd, "You can't have a fish picker [commercial fisherman] from Texas.") This makes no sense. It is in fact one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Having a baby on an airplane would almost certainly have ended Sarah Palin's political career, just due to the embarrassment and the criticism she would have come under for inconveniencing the other passengers. If the baby had come to harm, it would definitely had ended her career and might have opened her up to prosecution. If the events of April 17, 2008 occurred as described, at 2 PM on that day when she got an airplane to return to Alaska, she could not know what would happen during the next eight hours. This is the risk the Sarah Palin would not take. This is the risk she did not take.

PART 2 COMING SOON.

Wonkette

2009-06-27T04:28:00.001-07:00

Although many others who blog about issues concerning Sarah Palin have mentioned this already, I sure cannot let it pass.

The political blog, Wonkette, yesterday, while jumping with both feet onto the Desecration of Holy Child Special Needs Trig bandwagon, casually called him Bristol Palin's son.

Yes, that's right. "See that photoshop up there of Governor Palin with Bristol Palin’s child, Trig? "

Not one of the comments (and there are many) have yet called them on it. They've not bothered to "correct" it. Not even, an "Oops, our bad. It was just a typo. LOL."

Nothing.

Good Grief

2009-06-25T10:38:00.000-07:00

That's all I can say.

Sarah Palin's (big) mouth (a.k.a. Meghan Stapleton) is at it again, releasing a statement today that can only be considered more stupid than her last statement - and that one was pretty dumb. I did not do a blog post here on the statement released several days ago, but several other bloggers did, for example, here, so I recommend you take a gander.

However, today's statement was so ridiculous that I cannot let it pass. I just can't. I'm helpless in the face of the sheer stupidity. (And remember - this person gets paid for saying things like this. She probably sits around and thinks and after, oh, two or three hours of thinking she comes up with something profound. Like this one.)

Several days ago this caricature appeared on the Internet.

The original source for this apparently was a blog called "Crooks and Liars." Now this looks like David Letterman to me, and the tags on the what I *think* is the original posting of the cartoon SAY "David Letterman." However, according to numerous people this is NOT David Letterman cradled tenderly in Gov. Palin's arms, but Eddie Burke, a conservative Alaska radio talk "personality."

It doesn't matter who it is supposed to be. The fact is that it's a political cartoon and it's damn funny.

(Update: I have just figured out the sequence here. The original posting was this cartoon shown above. No objections or comments came from the Palin camp at that time. Then, an Alaskan Blogger, Celtic Diva, as part of a fundraiser, created a spoof of the cartoon, in which she did used a photoshopped photo in which the face of Eddie Burke was used. The original image was David Letterman and it was a cartoon; the image that Miss Meg issued a statement regarding was the photo.)

But not to Meghan the Mouth. She posted the following statement to Sarah Palin's Facebook page:

Recently we learned of a malicious desecration of a photo of the Governor and baby Trig that has become an iconic representation of a mother's love for a special needs child.

The mere idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling. To learn that two Alaskans did it is absolutely sickening. Linda Kellen Biegel, the official Democrat Party blogger for Alaska, should be ashamed of herself and the Democratic National Committee should be ashamed for promoting this website and encouraging this atrocious behavior.

Babies and children are off limits. It is past time to restore decency in politics and real tolerance for all Americans. The Obama Administration sets the moral compass for its party. We ask that special needs children be loved, respected and accepted and that this type of degeneracy be condemned.

Now, we digress to a bit of etymology. "Desecration" comes to us from Latin, as so many of our best words do. It comes from "de," which means to do the opposite of, and "secrare," which means to make holy. (Sacred comes from this same Latin word, of course, though that word comes to English via a slightly different path.)

ONLY a religiously recognized holy image or place can be desecrated. Surely she misspoke. Surely in the heat of the moment she said "desecrate" when she really meant "change" or "photoshopped," right? But no, because Ms. Stapleton actually continues this analogy of holiness when, in the same paragraph, she uses the word "iconic." An icon is also a religious picture of a holy person.

So there we have it: an iconic representation of "mother and child" has been desecrated. Don't they burn people at the stake for that? Maybe in Alaska.

If this weren't all so sad, it would be hilarious. Obviously, having failed to keep herself in the public's eye any longer via the Willow/Bristol/David Letterman brouhaha, Sarah Palin is turning to another "offense," this one involving another child, Trig.

Oh, excuse me. The special needs child Trig. And we know that he is special needs child Trig because they tell us he is special needs child Trig three times in three paragraphs.

"The idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling." No it's not. This is a political spoof and a funny one. Trig is not in the cartoon or the photo. Trig's clothes might be, but Trig is not. Whether you are talking about the original cartoon or the subsequent photo, someone else's head is on a baby's body being held by a Sarah Palin.

But again we have the pious stand: Babies and children are off limits.

Well, they might be now, but they weren't when Sarah Palin needed to use her seventeen year old daughter to prove that she, Sarah, had to be Trig's mother, instead of, oh, releasing a birth certificate. They weren't the countless times Sarah Palin trit-trotted onto a stage in spike heels, carrying a five month old (oh, excuse me, special needs five month old) like a sack of (special needs) potatoes then passing him off like a (special needs) football.

But that, I guess, was then and this is now. And now, given the opportunity to rile the rabble with yet another imagined slur to yet another Palin child, (this one special needs - Did we mention that?) into the fray they go.

Good Grief.

The Diminishment of Sarah Palin

2009-06-23T08:07:00.000-07:00

There's no questioning that life for Sarah Palin must feel very much like a pressure cooker.

Politicians of any stripe feel the heat, but for scandal-plagued Alaskan governor that heat must be intense. Eighteen ethics charges have led to a huge legal debt. The party that once treated her as a rising star seems rather less enamored with her today. Her repeated efforts to keep herself in the news about anything but state business has raised mounting criticism in Alaska. Her public feud with the Johnstons and subsequent revelations have tarnished the holier-than-thou family image she sought to project on the campaign trail. And then, of course, there are the ongoing questions about her claim that she gave birth to Trig.

For Sarah Palin, the heat must be intense. Perched on the cusp of her political future, she looks down to see wolves snapping at her heels. The fact that she's been throwing them red meat since the beginning is of no consequence. The truth is that this seems to be getting to her.

Some of our readers and researchers have observed both on the blog and over at Team Truther that the stress seems to be showing in Sarah's physical appearance. In this June 17 groundbreaking ceremony at Goose Creek Prison, she looks alarmingly thin:

Even more alarming is this screen shot captured by fellow blogger Enneologic, which highlights Sarah's nearly skeletal hands:

Some could argue that Sarah's marked weight loss could be just a symptom of the vanity she displayed on the campaign trail. Thin is in, after all. But she's always been svelte, and her appearance has gone far beyond that.

There have been hints and whispers that something else is looming, something big, something that has her more worried than ever. We've heard nothing verifiable of what this may be. And besides, from the beginning our focus has been squarely on seeking the truth about Sarah's claims to be the birth mother of Trig.

And that is where it will remain, because even if Sarah is physically diminishing, among her base she looms larger than life. And that's reason enough for us to continue with this quest.

An Interesting Slip?

2009-06-18T05:44:00.000-07:00

I had wanted to make this blog post before announcing our new discussion board "Team Truther," but I did not get to it. Please read the post below this one as well, if you have not - on the announcing of our new board.

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

In the last 2-3 days, there have been two comments made by players in this drama to press that have been noticed as - perhaps - being indicative of what we believe the "real story," may be, specifically that Bristol Palin is the mother of both Trig Palin and Tripp Johnston.

One comment, I believe, is NOT significant, but the other may be. First, let's talk about Levi's comment, as quoted in the Daily Beast, that his "boys" were going to be "so mad" when they saw the new clothing he'd acquired in Los Angeles. While it's easy to jump on this, and say, "Boys! He said 'boys'!", I believe that in this context Levi is referring to "male friends." My daughters frequently say that they are doing somthing with "my girls," to mean that they are socializing that evening with an all-female group. (Not large groups of granddaughters that I am somehow unaware of!) Infants and toddlers are not going to be "mad" about parental clothing choices, and I find the idea that he was talking about babies when he said this implausible.

The second comment, however, is, I think, far more worthy of comment. Buried deep in the transcript of Sarah Palin's interview with Wolf Blitzer is the following sentence, regarding the identity of the daughter that David Letterman's joke referred to: It wasn't my older daughter, who's in college and taking care of her young family.

"Family." That word choice is very very interesting.

Long Long Ago and Far Far Away, I was a student. I studied, not medicine or science (areas of endeavor that would ultimately have helped me in what I ended up doing professionally) but history and linguistics. Linguistics is, as we always tried to explain to other tipsy undergrads in bars, the study of "Language" with a capital "L" NOT languages, with a small "l." Although as an adult, I have never done anything with my linguistics degree professionally, nuances of language and grammar have always fascinated me.

To a native speaker of English, I believe "family" in this context implies more than one child. It's a collective noun that implies a group. Now, if someone says, "John and Sue are starting a family," we all know that this means they are having their first baby, because they are having the FIRST member of what might become a group.

But when someone is staying home, taking care of a "young family," this means children. If she had ONE baby, I believe a native English speaker would say, "at home with her baby." The natural way for Gov. Palin to have expressed this would have been: It wasn't my older daughter, who's in college and taking care of her new baby. Or even: It wasn't my older daughter, who's in college and taking care of Tripp.

Of course - this proves nothing. Those of us who doubt Palin's birth tale need no more proof; those who think she walks on water will find this - at best - an insignificant slip of the tongue, and at worst we'll get the typical comments: "Oh, I say 'family' all the time when I mean one child." Yeah, right. And I'm sure you say this to your friend who is nine months pregnant with her fifth eight pound child and who doesn't look pregnant at all! Amazing.

A nail in the coffin? Probably not. An interesting slip o' the tongue to file away? Definitely.

Team Truther

2009-06-17T18:14:00.001-07:00

Team Truther? What's that?

A new and, we hope, exciting evolution of PalinDeception.com.

The facts are well-known: I am Audrey, a mother of six, childbirth educator and author, lactation consultant married to a physician. I started this website in September 2008 when I found the birth story told by Alaskan Governor and former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin completely unbelievable. I doubted the story from day one and have never wavered from this.

It was obvious from the beginning that I was not alone in finding this story utterly ludicrous. What began as a website raising questions about Palin’s dubious birth story quickly developed such a strong following that a blog was added to keep up with all the developments surrounding the controversy. The blog exploded with readers, with several of my posts receiving more than 500 comments. Over the subsequent months, a group of loyal and dedicated volunteers joined me to form a research team. Although a few people have had to leave the group due to other commitments, etc, the core of the research team (which is now eight people) has remained strikingly constant since November.

Now, more than nine months later, even more is required. Our loyal readers have in many ways become part of the research team. Again and again, they compile information and raise even more questions as the story unfolds. That is why we have decided to add a discussion forum, which we have called "Team Truther."

Team Truther may seem like a curious name since “truther” is generally considered a negative slur. It - along with its childish permutation "Troofer" - is used to disparage those of us who feel the American people are OWED (and I do not use that word lightly) a realistic and accurate explanation for the striking, even bizarre, inconsistencies in Palin's birth story. But if you're not a Truther, what are you? A Liar? (Yeah, that works for me.)

We are devoted to the continued pursuit of exposing Sarah Palin’s claim that the birth of Trig Palin occurred as she has claimed, and on the Palin Deception blog, we’ve limited discussion to topics directly related to this. And while the main focus of Team Truther WILL remain the issue of Trig’s birth, we will allow more latitude for discussion of other Palin-related issues. The rules will be more relaxed, too. We will aim for less moderation on the board than what exists on the blog – which has been the target of anti-truther spammers and Palinites.

The PalinDeception.com website AND blog are not going anywhere. The blog will of course still accept comments, and will remain the best place for longer, fully-researched posts on this issue. But this new discussion board, we hope, will become the go-to source for breaking developments on the case. The discussion board is a supplement for those who want to discuss things more in depth, offer up their own topics for discussion or even blog a little if they choose. Several of my researchers are eager to write their own blog posts, and they will bring new voices and points of view to our shared research.

Team Truther will have guidelines, however, and we expect contributors to honor them if we are to have the kind of open dialogue we would like to see take place.

In addition, I have made the decision to open a Cafe Press store, which will sell humorous merchandise - sweatshirts, mugs, hats, and the ever-popular canine T-shirts (I don't know how my dogs have survived without them) - related to our search. My out-of-pocket expenses related to this endeavor are now significant. Suggestions that I am funded by the DNC, President Obama, or, alternately, other Republicans who want to get rid of Palin, are all false. I am funded by myself. Period. I have resisted taking "donations," but think that a Cafe Press store (where I get a small commission) and the customer gets a T-shirt "feels" a bit different. (I pray that NO ONE will interpret this as criticism in any way of some fellow bloggers who have put up PayPal buttons, because none is intended! This is just what I personally feel more comfortable with.) The decision to open this store was not taken lightly, but my hope is that the sale of merchandise will begin to help me recoup a small percentage of my actual expenses.

To those readers both new and old, thank you for your support. We look forward to your participation in the new forum.

Sarah's Selective Outrage

2009-06-15T12:54:00.000-07:00

Does anyone really believe Sarah Palin’s latest display of motherly indignation in the wake of Letterman’s admittedly unfunny comment directed at her daughter?

If they do, then they either a.) have short memories or b.) really don’t know much about Sarah Palin. Probably both.

It’s hard to top blogger Shannyn Moore’s assessment of Palin’s hypocrisy on what has become the Alaskan governor's latest Tour d'Outrage.

However, it's important to point out that, during the campaign, one SNL skit went so far as to suggest that Todd was "doing" the daughters. This SNL skit was far FAR more offensive than Letterman’s bad joke about Willow. Sarah's response? Boycott SNL advertisers? Media blitz? Whip the base into a foaming frenzy? No, actually, she appeared on the show one month later. Oh yeah, I think we all remember her Weekend Update with Seth Green.

But why is it that I REALLY want to get a vomit bag when Sarah drones on endlessly about protecting the young woman of America from exploitation? It's because this is the woman who, in late August, when confronted with ever-more-insistent demands for some proof, any proof at all that she herself had given birth to Trig four months earlier, "outed" her own minor child's pregnancy. She put 17 year old Bristol on a national stage in an ugly and ill-fitting dress, accompanied by a young man that her father reportedly had wanted his daughter to dump so much that he had offered to buy her a car. Instead of producing a birth certificate or a doctor, Sarah Palin made her daughter a walking punchline. How do you spell "exploit?" B - R - I - S - T - O - L

You gotta love these Palin family values. THEY are the joke. Or maybe not. Because they're not funny. And she's arguably done more damage to her children than any comedian ever could. You have to imagine that behind the scenes, her kids have expressed outrage at how they're privacy and dignity have been sacrificed for their mother's political gain. Unfortunately, when they complain, Sarah doesn't listen.

Which is why no one else should listen to her either.

New Section of Website Opening

2009-06-11T18:06:00.001-07:00

As I mentioned several days ago, I have been working on linked "calendar" pages on the website proper. These pages, one per date for which we have news, events, pictures or video, will be accessible through a straightforward "calendar" interface.

The initial group of pages have been uploaded. More will be added daily.

In general, I will be working to update the website. The initial goal for this endeavor was that the website would be an online repository, easy to use, of all material we could locate on this topic. I have fallen dreadfully short of that goal as this blog has become the core of the endeavor and the website has languished.

But - as I said - we are moving to correct that. New material, whether it's already existing data that is scattered all over this blog and the Internet (just what I hoped to avoid by STARTING the website in the first place) OR new material that we actually prepare de novo for the website, will be added regularly. We will begin moving aggressively towards my goal of making palindeception.com a truly usable archive for this information.

To access the new pages, simply go to the main page of the website, and click on the "Palin Pregnancy Photos" link.

A Bit of a New Direction

2009-06-09T03:57:00.000-07:00

Almost exactly nine months ago, I woke up one morning very pissed off. Something as plain as the hand in front of my eyes was being ignored by the main stream media to a degree I could not fathom.

And - since it occurred to me this morning - that nine months (rather incredibly) is the length of the average pregnancy, I thought it might be interesting to reflect this morning, on just how this "pregnancy" has gone.

Let's return to September 13, 2008, the day I launched the website. (The blog came a few days later.) It had been almost two weeks since John McCain had announced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, and the initial hysterical joy over the announcement, even among the loyal base, was beginning to erode just a bit. The Charles Gibson interview on the 11th, while not the catastrophe that the Couric interview on September 24th would become, had certainly not not been a smashing success, either. Palin came across as vague, uninformed, and rather ineffective. She was noted most often for saying "Charlie" a lot. A real lot.

In other venues, questions about Palin's ethics, mostly vis a vis "Troopergate" (but including other issues as well) continued to dog the campaign. And of course, what has now been called "Babygate," simply would not die.

As I have said previously, my initial interest in the story had nothing to do with Palin or her politics. As a long time childbirth educator and author, I had always had a "pet peeve:" media misrepresentation of childbirth. Overall, books, movies and TV shows present birth in one of two ways: either impossibly sanitary and easy or staggeringly dangerous. Babies either fall out or die; in birth fiction, there seems often to be no middle ground, and believing either extreme does not help women have happy safe births.

My initial assumption upon hearing Palin's story of Trig's birth was that some male reporter had simply gotten the facts wrong because, of course, no experienced mother of four would get on an airplane, leaking amniotic fluid, eight months pregnant. Just didn't happen. Period.

I've said this before but it bears repeating: birth is not a tidy process. The Governor of Alaska did not risk having to lie down in the middle of an airplane aisle, rip off her panty hose, spread her legs, and push a baby out in a puddle of blood, mucous, amniotic fluid, and, quite possibly, either her own excrement or the baby's. If she were in fact leaking amniotic fluid, she knew before she got on the airplane to fly a total of more than eight hours, that this was a very real possibility. And it is because no one would confront her with this graphic and basic reality back in early September we are here today.

To this day, the only truly concrete statement from either of the Palins as to why Sarah made this choice has come from Todd: "You can't have a fish picker [commercial fisherman] from Texas." Good Lord. Which is more absurd, that anyone ever believed this lame explanation or that people apparently still do?

I knew as soon as I realized that Palin was sticking by this nonsensical version of events that there was a lie somewhere. I have never once wavered from that conviction in nine months. I wasn't sure exactly what, where, or why, but I knew it was a lie. I also could never put together in my mind why so few other people - smart people who, while perhaps not knowing quite as much about childbirth as I do, but who nevertheless have a good basic understanding - did not come out and say, unequivocally and simply, "This birth story does not pass any sort of credible scrutiny. We have a right to ask why. And these questions have nothing to do with Palin's daughter."

Nine months is a long time. Women who became pregnant when I started this website and blog are now having their babies. When I chose to begin collating the information about Palin's pregnancy (and initially, my endeavor was to be nothing more than a repository of documents, photos, and facts that at the time were spread all over the Internet) I did not dream it would be necessary even up until the point of the election, some seven weeks later. The idea that I would still be thinking about Sarah Palin's uterus nine MONTHS later would have nauseated me.

My good friend Gryphen at Immoral Minority said to me recently: Audrey, you don't have to prove anything else. You have proved that Sarah Palin was never pregnant. The problem now is getting people to listen. While I am not 100% sure he is right, I know in my heart that it's close.

So where are we going from here? First, look to this blog for much more frequent and probably shorter posts. When I started the blog, Trig Palin (based on his announced birth date) was approximately four and half months old. Now, he is 15 months old. Although I know there is still information out there for us to find, the plain fact is that it is becoming increasingly difficult. PD posts, while still mostly focusing on the central question of "Babygate," will begin delving into other areas of comment and research direction, often directly related to Palin's overall credibility. After all the blog is called "Palin Deceptions."

Secondly, we are revamping the website, something that has fallen horribly by the wayside as this blog has become the core of the endeavor. Very soon, we are opening a new area of the site, which will, in easy-to-use "calendar" fashion, have clickable links to many many days of Palin's late "pregnancy" with the associated photos. I still find myself astonished when I look at some of the photos, that she has gotten away with absurd lie for so long. When the photos - event after event of photos - are viewed in sequence it becomes laughable.

Look also for posts from others - members of the wonderful research team that have done so much to bring this story to the fore - as well as possibly "guest" posts by long time readers.

And... just as a closing statement... I know many readers have been curious about statements made on other blogs about icebergs and huge revelations and waves crashing onto the shore. (Well, maybe not waves...) Regardless, IS this story going to be over soon?

I think it may be. I think this baby is going to be born soon, and then we can all send a shower gift, and go home.

Bristol Palin: Homeschooler?

2009-05-29T18:44:00.000-07:00

The Palins have certainly given the phrase “school choice” new meaning over the past few years. Since Sarah Palin was elected governor in 2006, her children have attended schools in Wasilla, Juneau, Anchorage, and Michigan. They have also been kept out of school for considerable periods of time, for example, during last fall's campaign, leading to a situation where seven year old Piper actually stated on camera to Matt Lauer that she was having a hard time catching up.

In several private conversations I have had with reporters and others in Alaska, I have been told that Gov. Palin had come under considerable, though mostly under the radar, scrutiny (even some criticism) regarding how inconsistently her children attended school, and how glibly they were moved from place to place. Track, for example, attended most of his senior year in Michigan, allegedly to play on a more prominent hockey team, but when his hockey prospects dimmed he was, in March of his senior year, brought back to Wasilla where he finished the year at Wasilla High School. Having shepherded six children through high school I cannot fathom a teen changing schools three quarters of the way through his senior year, but maybe that's just me being too picky or something.

Exact details concerning the whereabouts of Bristol Palin, however, have been harder to pin down. In particular, Bristol’s attendance during the 2007-08 school year has been questioned on this site and on others. This school year, of course, is the focus of our interest. Why?

1. Someone had to be pregnant with Trig Palin during most of what would have been the 2007 - 2008 school year. If it were not Sarah Palin, it had to be someone else. Period.
2. Photographs of Bristol Palin taken in September of 2007 when compared to June of 2007 show physical changes which are consistent with pregnancy. Does this prove she WAS pregnant? No. Does it suggest that she could have been? Yes.
3. "Something" appears to have happened in Bristol Palin's life during the summer of 2007. She went from being openly in school in the spring of 2007, attending First Family events (albeit reluctantly), posting frequently on social networking sites, working at a coffee shop in early summer of that year, to... as far as we can tell... dropping almost totally out of sight by early fall. She was photographed in Juneau in mid September 2007, then no other photograph of her exists until late April of 2008. ONE family photograph (containing Bristol) released by the Palin family to the media of "Christmas 2007" has been shown to actually have been taken Christmas 2006.
4. Rumors that Bristol Palin WAS pregnant were circulating in Alaska as early as December of 2007, long before Trig was allegedly born in April of 2008.

So obviously Bristol's school attendance during the fall of 2007 is of considerable interest to those of us who are trying to get solid answers to this mystery. Imagine our surprise, then, when out of the blue two days ago comes a totally new, previously unheard of revelation from Levi Johnston to GQ Magazine: he and Bristol, at some point during this 2007 - 2008 school year, homeschooled TOGETHER at the Palin home.

My initial response: Huh?

Her attendance during that year at both Wasilla and Anchorage West has been extensively questioned based on conflicting reports, and spotty information. Of course, neither school will (or should) give any information about a minor student "on the record." So what is known must be pieced together from media reports, which often contradict each other. Wasilla High Assistant Principal Mark Okeson told the media in September that Bristol had transferred to Anchorage “midyear”, though he admitted: “I never heard the story why.” This certainly makes it sound as if she attended Wasilla until Christmas 2007 and then left. The National Enquirer reported that Sarah banished Bristol to live with her Aunt Heather in Anchorage after learning of her pregnancy. And Kyle Hopkins at the Anchorage Daily News, speaking with Heather Bruce shortly after Sarah’s nomination, confirmed from Bristol's own aunt that Bristol attended Anchorage West “in the spring." Bristol's attendance was also confirmed by a private source who has stated to me that Bristol, a friend of her child's, attended Anchorage West in January and February, leaving some time before mid-March 2008.

Yet, the details surrounding the transition from Wasilla to Anchorage remain fuzzy. If Tripp was born at or close to full term in late December, 2008, Bristol could not have known about her pregnancy prior to either very late April or early May of 2008. Anchorage West's LAST day of school in 2008 was May 16th. So it is absurd to suggest that she lived with Heather Bruce AND went to school at any point during her pregnancy with Tripp. She didn't. If it is true that she lived with Heather Bruce while pregnant AND she attended school, it MUST refer to a prior pregnancy.

We do know from Sarah Palin’s interview with Alaska Magazine that, as of fall 2007, the plan at that point had been for Bristol to stay in Wasilla to finish out her high school career. If so, it would be understandable. Not many teenagers appreciate being taken away from friends, favorite teachers, and social events right in the middle of high school.

But, there may have been another option, and, based on Levi's recent statement to GQ, one that may well have been utilized by the Palins. In an article published by the Boston Herald on September 2, 2008, WHS principal Dwight Probasco stated that, while Levi did play for the Wasilla Warriors hockey team during the 2007-08 season, he was not attending classes that year--instead, he was homeschooled via the Mat-Su Correspondence Study School. Here's the exact quote:

Principal Dwight Probasco explained Levi’s decision to drop out: “School might have interfered with Levi’s moose-hunting, so he did a home school course. He continued to play on the ice hockey team, even though he stopped coming to classes two years ago. I understand he is now out of work.”

And now, a new article in GQ magazine not only confirms that Levi was homeschooling during that school year, but appears to impart some additional information that we had not heard before. Referring to Levi at that time:

“The previous year [this has to refer to 2007-2008] he’d been in a homeschool scenario. Alaska boasts the most lax homeschooling rules of any state in the union, in the sense that they have literally almost no rules. Levi was doing his learning online, through a Brigham Young University program. Unsupervised, at the Palins’ house, where Bristol Palin was homeschooling, too.”

The timeline for Bristol's homeschooling is--what a surprise--unclear. It is generally accepted, though, that she began attending Anchorage West at some point in 2008, so this article appears to be referring to the months prior to that. Read that again. This article is now strongly suggesting that Bristol was NOT in fact attending Wasilla High in the fall of 2007, but was "homeschooling."

Wow. Bristol Palin - popular, athletic, good student, missed all of her friends at Wasilla High SO much while in Juneau the previous spring that she decided to... home school? IN Wasilla? What's wrong with this picture?

And adding gasoline to the intrigue fire is a quote from Gov. Palin herself, in August of 2007, where she states specifically to interviewer Armstrong Williams that, the previous day, Bristol (and her siblings) had been registered for school. In fact, what Gov. Palin specifically says is, "Four kids, four different schools." No mention of homeschooling here whatsoever. (Forgive the digression, but I must point out another curious fact: the fourth kid can only be Track, and since he had graduated from high school the previous spring, this has to refer to registering for community college or some other higher education source. Yet... within a month he's changed his mind and has enlisted in the military. It's been suggested many places that Track's enlistment decision was abrupt, and motivated, at least in part, by something other than pure patriotism. This certainly seems to confirm that his mother, in August of 2007, had no clue he was about to enlist.)

Something just ain't right here, folks. Homeschooling is one of the button issues of the religious right. If Palin had homeschooled any of her children for any time at all, don't you think it would have been used during the campaign? Good grief, they used everything else they could find. But no... homeschool prior to the fall of 2008 was never mentioned once that I can find in connection with the Palin family.

I have suspected for a long time that Bristol Palin did not attend school in the fall of 2007, but have not been able to prove it. Does this chance comment from Levi Johnston (just keep talking, kid) provide conclusive proof? No. Does it bring us one step closer? I think so.

Ho! Ho! Ho!

2009-05-09T06:01:00.000-07:00

As I have stated many times, it has always been my preference to focus on Gov. Palin's behavior and appearance regarding the "Who's Your Mommy? And What Does She Do?" conspiracy. I was - like so many other mothers - disgusted by Palin's behavior regarding her children during the campaign, first quite specifically her choosing to use the announcement of Bristol's then-current pregnancy as the direct - and sole - proof that Bristol could NOT be Trig's mother, meaning that Sarah then had to be, and second, the way she paraded and displayed the children like so many stage props. There's one video in particular in which she carries a rather inert Trig out on stage like a big stuffed doll, strides briskly around with him, then hands him off like a football. I literally cried when I saw it. (I can't find the link at the moment, but if I do I will update this post to include it.)

OK, rant over.

Anyway... I really have not wanted to focus on Palin's children but it has been inevitable that the children - in particular Bristol - had to be brought into the dialogue for the simple reason that Bristol was (and really continues to be) Sarah's only proof that she - and not Bristol - gave birth to Trig. No birth certificate, no doctor's statement, no happy family in the hospital photos, nothing. Just Bristol. (Oh, and "Sarah wouldn't lie." I guess we can't forget that.)

So Bristol's whereabouts, behavior, and appearance are regrettably "fair game." And recently, two discoveries have opened yet more legitimate queries into just where Bristol Palin was and what she was doing - and how she "looked" - in the fall of 2007.

When the rumors first hit the Internet the last few days of August, 2008 that Palin had faked a pregnancy to cover for Bristol, two photos were widely shown in which Bristol Palin purportedly had a "baby bump." The first, in which Bristol is wearing a green sweater, was taken at the Palin's home in Wasilla. I have felt confident dating this to 2006, based on the fact that we discovered another photo from the same shoot in which Todd is wearing a campaign button.

But the second photo was a bit more troublesome.

People said many different things about this photo. One of the first was that it was from February of 2008. (I always thought that was most unlikely unless Alaska is a whole lot warmer than I have been led to believe.) Fairly early on, a correspondent identified this photo as having been taken in Juneau - and sometime in the summer or early fall, as the mountain in the background - according to him - typically has snow on it by late September. That seemed reasonable, and from this we could date the picture with more accuracy. It had to be the summer / early fall of 2007. Why? In summer of 2006, Palin was not yet governor; by summer of 2008, Trig was born and he is not in the photo.

I have always been bothered by this photo because - frankly - I never thought that the person in the photo that HAD to be Bristol looked much like other photos available of her. And of course the reason we are looking at this photo is the alleged "baby bump." Is there one? Possibly, though it did not look much different than the picture I felt dated from 2006. What bothered me more - a lot more - was how different and frankly "fatter" her face looked! But all in all, it's hard to tell, and you can't deny that she does look "full" in the middle.

I never felt confident saying anything with any certainty, however, because dates just did not add up in my mind. Operating from the assumption that Trig was really "due" in mid May 2008 and born a month early, if this photo was taken "before the end of the September" whoever is pregnant here could only have been 4-6 weeks - at the most - too early to show no matter who it is.

But one rumor that has persisted since the onset of this investigation was that Trig was born much earlier than announced. People have based this on numerous (and frankly very divergent) "evidence," not the least being that Trig - from the very beginning of his public debut in September looked much older and larger than you would expect a baby who, on Sept 1, was 4 1/2 months old and had been born prematurely. Other researchers have found clear evidence of a jar of baby food for much older babies (nine months plus) in a photograph of Sarah's desk from August on 2008 when Trig would have been barely four months old. Numerous people have commented that Trig looked much older than his supposed nine months in a recent promotional video Sarah did for the Special Olympics.

And of course as was revealed on this blog several weeks ago - we have clear evidence that Bristol Palin's presence was "scrubbed" almost entirely from MySpace beginning approximately July 1, 2007. Why? We had our suspicions but could prove nothing.

However, with the discovery of some additional photos which clearly show that Bristol Palin experienced rather striking physical changes between June of 2007 and September of 2007 PLUS our discovery that the Palin family may have intentionally released a "Christmas 2007" photo which was actually from Christmas 2006, it's hard not to have our suspicion alert level go to orange, if not red.

Here's what we know:

Several weeks ago, an alert blog reader provided us with this link. Apparently, these photos have been available all along but languished, undiscovered, on a UK photo website. Here's the link and here's another. (For this second link, you need to enter the site and you can search either on photographer's name (Andrew Testa) or "Palin.")

These links were critical because it allowed us to date - absolutely - that the photo of the Palin family on the balcony was taken on September 13th (or 14th - there seems to be a bit of confusion about the date, but a one day discrepancy is not an issue.) We already had suspected this because Palin's agenda, released under a FOIA request, indicated that official family portraits had been taken in Juneau on these dates, but we could not prove that THIS photo was taken then. Now we could.

One thing that is striking about these photos is that Bristol clearly shows signs of a weight gain, both in her face and in her body, when you contrast these shots with ones taken of her only three months earlier, on June 10, 2007.

She is slim hipped, lean through the face, completely flat in the belly, and frankly not very large on top. And three months later - we have this:

This is another photograph that we recently ran across. It was - we think - supposed to have been the "official Palin family holiday portrait for Christmas 2007" and it was obviously taken the same day as all the other photos in September. It was released for use in the Alaska Business Journal's December issue, but I still have not been able to determine if it ever appeared on the state website, or any where else for that matter. It could have been - but considering the fact that we have never seen this photo before now, my guess is that sometime between when it was released to the Alaska Business Journal and Christmas, the Palins changed their mind about using it. Hmmm. Wonder why....

Want another comparison between June 10 and September 14? Here it is:

And this brings me to the second interesting little tidbit that my ever vigilant helpers discovered. One of the things that has always struck us is the complete dearth of any photos of Bristol Palin between (now we know) September 14, 2007 and April 25, 2008 (when she posed in a candid shot with Mercede Johnston before Mercede attended the prom at Burchell High School.)

Bristol supposedly went with her mother to New York City in October of 2007. She is mentioned briefly on the state of Alaska website as having attended a license plate art ceremony (now there's some fun!) in early January, 2008, and again - according to travel reimbursement forms Palin filed, Bristol was also supposed to have attended an American Heart Association event in Fairbanks in mid February, 2008 though no photos of Bristol that we can locate seem to exist for any of these. (Queries to the Heart Association about this event have been met with a surprisingly, even shocking amount of obfuscation and stonewalling. More on this in a future post.) But other than that, the public record is amazingly silent on the whereabouts of Bristol Palin between September 2007 and April 2008.

One "sole" official photo seemed to exist, this Palin family photo released in the Kaylene Johnson biography of Palin, and dated to Christmas 2007. Here - naysayers have claimed - HERE is a photo of Bristol. Nothing to see here. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, you Trig Truthers you.

Except, not so fast.

Here's the picture released in Kaylene Johnson's book:

It's clearly dated 2007.

But here's a picture released in another Palin biography, Lorenzo Benet's Trailblazer.

It's dated 2006. Every person in the photo is wearing the same clothes, so it's reasonable to assume it's from the same year. But which year is it? Who's wrong? Kaylene Johnson or Lorenzo Benet? How to know?

Conveniently, every year at the Governor's Mansion in Juneau, the Governor of Alaska hosts an open house. Many high quality and reliably dated pictures are available of this event from mainstream media for both years. Careful analysis of the photos have shown that the decorations - specifically ornaments on the wreath visible behind the Palin family - are consistent with 2006 NOT 2007. It's not easy to see in the photo released in the Benet book, but when you really look, the conclusion is obvious.

Here's the wreath from the Lorenzo Benet book:

Here's the wreath from Christmas 2006, according to the official state of Alaska website:

Here's the wreath from Christmas 2007, again from the official state site:

It's obvious that the wreath in the photos from both the Kaylene Johnson book and Lorenzo Benet book is from 2006. A "typo" on Kaylene Johnson's part? An OOPS on the Palin family's part? Whatever the answer, this photograph is not from 2007. It's from 2006. Yet another "possible" sighting of Bristol from the time period in question is proved false.

So - what can we conclude?

1. In spite of rigorous efforts to locate one, not a single piece of photographic evidence exists of Bristol Palin from mid September 2007 until April 2008. This is a girl who had many friends with social networking pages. This is the daughter of the governor of Alaska, who prior to this time, had required her daughter to attend numerous "First Family" events.

2. Photographs that do exist show a striking amount of physical change in Bristol Palin during the early months of the time when "someone" would have been pregnant with Trig.

3. The one photograph ever released "officially" by Palin which purported to show her daughter in December of 2007 was misdated. By whom, we do not know.

Stay tuned...

Good Morning Chuckle

2009-05-09T05:20:00.000-07:00

My email box is filled with queries about the recently revealed "Christmas - 2007" photograph of the Palin family, which was actually taken in September 2007. A post about this photograph (putting it into a context) is the works.

Meanwhile, just so you can spit YOUR coffee all over YOUR computer screen (you were warned - best to put the cup down now) I'd like to share the following letter. It was written by "Sarah Stelfox" hailing from Alberta, in a "letter to the editor" response to Vanity Fair's recent article on Sarah Palin.

I completely disagree with James Wolcott's description of Sarah Palin as "Margaret Thatcher with moose antlers," a term that is unfair to Ms. Thatcher, in particular, and moose in general. On second thought, I may have to allow the moose bit - for two reasons. Number one: Here in the Canadian Foothills, moose have a regrettable tendency to wander along the roadside, and when a car approaches, they panic, leave the shoulder, and run straight down the center of the road, oblivious to the fact that the car is both faster and stronger than they are. Number two: Although moose often have long legs and an impressive rack, their communication skills leave a lot to be desired, which makes them well suited to a solitary life in the bush, but somewhat awkward in urban settings, where logic and complete sentences are required.

Thank you Sarah Stelfox. We could not have said it better.

Enough is Enough

2009-05-07T09:46:00.000-07:00

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?"

Pregnant with Piper? You betchya...!

2009-04-28T14:43:00.000-07:00

Since the beginning of the controversy regarding Gov. Sarah Palin's pregnancy, one aspect that has been commented on continually is that her appearance last spring did not mesh with expectations of a "normal" pregnancy.

At the time of the announcement, March 5th, 2008, the news that she was expecting was regarded with utter astonishment. Although Palin claimed at the time that she had to announce the pregnancy when she did because "people were beginning to notice," and that her clothes were getting "snugger and snugger," in fact the only person who has ever stated this IS Gov. Palin. (Even the article in which Palin is quoted as saying her clothes were getting tighter has as its main theme the fact that no one - not even her staffers - suspected she was pregnant.)

And a quick digression: I have always wondered, after reading this explanation for the public acknowledgment of a pregnancy that was allegedly already in its seventh month, if no one had EVER "noticed" her clothes getting tight, at what point would Palin have announced it? It's a fair question. Or would she have just showed up with a baby one day? She seems to be implying exactly that.)

Not one person has ever come forward and stated that they even suspected Gov. Palin to be pregnant prior to March 5th, at which point she would have been – based on her own announced due date – approximately 29 weeks pregnant with her fifth child. Not one staffer, not one journalist, no one. One sole journalist, Cherie Shirrey of KTVA, within 48 hours of the controversy erupting in August, jumped to Palin's defense and claimed that she had seen Palin numerous times for interviews and "in the studio" prior to Trig's birth (implying that it was between the time of the announcement – March 5th – and the birth six weeks later) and that Palin was definitely pregnant. Here's the blog post I did about this last December. However, Palin's daily schedule (obtained under a FOIA request) for the two months prior to Trig's birth in fact shows not a single visit to this TV station's studio. I have personally written Ms. Shirrey asking her to corroborate her statement. I have inquired about the dates of these interviews, topics covered, and why no video or stills are available of any of these interviews. I have received no answer.

After the announcement of her nomination on August 29th, one photo had appeared of Gov. Palin pregnant with a previous child (prior to the alleged pregnancy with Trig in 2008.)

This photo was provided by her parents to the news media as part of a large group of family photos that were released very shortly (within a day or two) after her VP pick. Although in a couple of places it has been suggested that this is not actually Palin at all (based on the fact that frankly the woman in the photo does not seem to look much like Sarah Palin does now) neither the Palin family nor the McCain campaign retracted the photo or ever stated it was not she. This photo has been shown widely, specifically to cast doubt on whether she is Trig's mother, and has been effective in doing so. I believe that if they had been able to retract the photo by claiming that it was someone else and had been released by mistake, that they would have done so.

Her hairstyle and general appearance actually are consistent with other photos we have of her from the late eighties into the early nineties. This comparison below shows Palin, I believe, looking very much similar to the photo of her late in pregnancy.

(And, no, I have no clue at all why she is wearing a crown, so don't bother to ask.)

Although rumored to be of her late in her pregnancy with Track (in 1989), as far as I can determine that's never been confirmed. However, based on hairstyle, my guess is that the photo is either from Track's pregnancy or Bristol's pregnancy two years later (1991.) Willow was born in mid-summer, 1995, and based on the surroundings, I do not believe this to be a mid summer scene.

Regardless of the exact year, however, one thing is clear. Gov. Palin is not only pregnant, she is in this photo I would say larger than average, particularly so if this might be her first pregnancy. In precise medical terms, she's huge. This evidence of her being of certainly "normal" size (and then some) in a prior pregnancy has been largely ignored by those who support Palin. They feel comfortable ignoring this photo for one reason: we do not know "how pregnant" Palin is here. She could hypothetically be one day away from giving birth at full term, a point she never reached with Trig, who was allegedly born at 35 weeks. Palin might be, it's suggested, one of those women who just gets really big "right at the end." The picture therefore is worthless for comparison purposes, it's claimed.

And – again – whenever this is discussed, the same group of "she got big right at the end" naysayers also serenade us with plausible tales of how they themselves, (or their wives, sisters, co-workers, what have you) never looked pregnant either. Every one of these people seems to know LOTS of 110 pound women who never looked pregnant and then, miraculously, gave birth to healthy seven, eight, even nine pound children. I am sure there are exceptions to every rule, but in fact, in nearly thirty years of working with pregnant women, I have never met one who looked significantly less pregnant on a subsequent pregnancy (unless there was a very good physiological reason, such as a single pregnancy following twins) than she did on an earlier one. It just doesn't work that way. I know, you know it, Governor Sarah Palin knows it, and deep down, every Palin supporter who tries to feed us this line of bullpuckey knows it too.

Since September, I have been hoping that additional photos of Palin from a prior pregnancy would become available which would shed some additional light on this issue. Was her pregnancy with Piper, for example, as magically free of any of those pesky physical changes as her pregnancy with Trig apparently was?

I can say now that it was not. Additional photos have been found, though regrettably they are not of the best quality. We have located two photographs of her taken in late November/early December, 2000, during her pregnancy with Piper. Both are from the archives of the Frontiersman, the local newspaper for the Mat-Su Valley.

Originals are not available. We have the photos in three separate formats, copies made from microfiche (microfiche provided by the University of Alaska), Xerox copies made from the actual extant physical copies of the paper (in person at the Frontiersman offices), and digital photographs of the physical copies of the paper (also taken in person at the Frontiersman offices.) None of these methods are ideal. Yet, in both, in spite of the fuzziness of the copies, I believe she definitely looks pregnant.

Piper was born on March 22, 2001, according to this article on her projected due date. The first week of December, therefore, Sarah Palin would have been around 25 weeks pregnant. She looks, well, normal. At twenty five weeks into her fourth pregnancy. This is, fortuitously, exactly the same point of pregnancy she would have been at when these famous "Super Tuesday" photos were taken in Juneau.

Unlike many other photos of her taken in late winter / early spring 2008, where Palin seems to be determined to hide behind winter coats, trench coats, huge (and notably unattractive) floppy print scarves, tables, podiums, mannish black blazers, and her own children, these two shots are remarkably clear. She is slim-hipped and flat-chested, and, in my opinion, she shows utterly no signs of pregnancy whatsoever.

Here are the two photos. The first, dated December 1, 2000 would have been taken sometime in the prior week, so let's say between November 24th and November 30th.

The second, dated December 5, 2000, again could have been taken any point in the prior week: between November 30th and December 4th. In this second photo, Palin is holding something – I presume a coat – draped over her left arm. Here's our original:

Here's one we sharpened to try to bring up some contrast between what she is wearing and what she is holding.

Closely examining the photo shows a slightly greenish cast to the fabric in a few places. However, as the fabric falls between her body and that of the other woman it is impossible to differentiate between what she is holding and her dark clothing, due to the fact that newspaper "half tones" scan at 85 dpi, which is a very low resolution photograph to work from.

In spite of the drawbacks of these two photos, the fullness of Palin's shape – in both photos - is impossible to deny.

Palin's supporters – the "Sarah Palin had Trig because Sarah Palin would never lie" posse – have also stated that the reason Palin never looked pregnant with Trig is that in 2007-2008 she was "in the public eye" and "did not let herself go." These photos of her pregnant with Piper demonstrate this is false. Palin was in the public eye (she was mayor of Wasilla) and was also very fit (running competitively around this point in her life). How she looked with Piper in 2000-2001 should be a very good guide to how we might have expected her to look with a fifth pregnancy several years later.

Why she didn't is anyone's guess. Mine is that she was not pregnant.

MySpace Part Three

2009-04-18T09:45:00.000-07:00

It has always been my preference to focus on the evidence that Sarah Palin was not pregnant in March and April of 2008, and let the question of the identity of Trig Palin’s biological mother play second fiddle. But, in spite of our preference to leave the Palin daughters out of the equation, we have not been able to avoid that completely. Bristol Palin was named nationally as Trig's mother in numerous places as early as August 29, 2008, and she was brought into the game by her own mother on September 1, when Sarah Palin chose to "prove" that she WAS Trig's mother, not by providing Trig's birth certificate or a clear statement by her physician, but by stating that her daughter was then five months pregnant, thus precluding Bristol's having given birth previously in mid-April.

Bristol Palin is by no means the only possibility for Trig Palin's birth mother. However, the persistence of the rumors that she was pregnant dating to before Trig's birth, coupled with the complete lack of photographs of her from the time period, makes it difficult not to continue to consider her the most likely "other mother."

Since September, numerous people have been looking to social networking websites, like MySpace for additional info about "Life and Times at Wasilla High." As we've stated previously, MySpace has NOT provided us concrete proof about this issue, specifically who Trig's mother is OR whether Bristol Palin was pregnant. But the MySpace comments do give a glimpse into the lives of Bristol, Levi and their circle of friends. And what we can see does indicate that something "changed" as early as July 2007 and that something was amiss during the winter of 2007-2008.

A number of the comments already published here have been suspicious, but none have been conclusive. For example, we’ve seen that Bristol made a series of interesting comments to her friend Johnny in the spring of 2007, including one stating that Gov. Palin had confronted her about possibly being pregnant. Other comments made to her girlfriends also merit attention:

June 22, 2007 9:40 PM
Hey, call me NOW!!

June 25, 2007 1:33 AM
:( now im a mother duck for that baby!

(Note from Audrey: This curious comment is discussed in more detail at the very end of this post.)

June 25, 2007 1:50 AM
ha ha im a slut. but sounds good…what number?

Without context, however, these comments can be interpreted in numerous ways. And, during this same period, other examples show Bristol to be happy and social, engaging in typical summertime activities. This makes it all the more strange when, in late June 2007, she suddenly disappears from MySpace, and is mentioned by name only once after that, even by her good friends.

Please be clear that we have no evidence that as of late June 2007, she actually did stop using MySpace abruptly. It's possible that she could have. Perhaps she became bored with MySpace. Perhaps her computer broke. Perhaps her friends just stopped talking both ABOUT her and TO her as of that date. But it's also quite possible (even probable) that she continued to use MySpace for months after this… and then at some point between late June 2007 and late August 2008, for reasons that we do not know at a point in time we cannot pinpoint, a decision was made to remove Bristol's page from the site, as well as delete any and all comments she made to friends, and apparently either to delete (or asked to be deleted) comments others made about her between themselves.

Because of this, our conclusions are drawn as much from what's NOT there as from what is.

What does our research show post-June 2007? One of the only comments that directly references Bristol after that time (and the only one that uses her name) has already been published, from September 2007, in which one girl (Kaila) is joking with Jenny Jo, who is a good friend of Levi’s off-and-on girlfriend Lanesia, because Jenny Jo had threatened to beat Bristol up for Lanesia.

9/28/2007 Kaila to Jenny Jo:
haha, you were gonna fight Bristol for Lanesia.. idk, it was freakin hilarious though. you were getttin ready to take on like 394083 people yourself. haha..funny ass shit. call me tonight bia.

Is this because Levi and Bristol’s relationship has just been discovered? The problem with this comment is that it references something that happened earlier, "you were gonna fight…" but there is no date context. Was this something that happened the previous night or three months earlier? We don't know.

In any case, by January 2008, Lanesia had moved on to a different relationship, indicating that Bristol and Levi most likely became “official” sometime in either the summer or the fall of 2007.

Although she had a new boyfriend, one specific comment shows that Lanesia might still have harbored some residual feelings for Levi. In late January 2008, there is a burst of chatter that may be significant, though it's inconclusive at the same time. First, messages are left between a young man named Tylor to our old friend Jenny Jo.

In the first, Tylor asks Jenny Jo: "Who do you want to beat up?" (indicating that Jenny Jo has told Tylor that she's angry with someone) and the second – in response to something Jenny Jo then said back to Tylor that we cannot see – "THEY F***ED?"

Is Tylor a newcomer to some gossip? Does the gossip even have anything at all to do with Bristol Palin? The next couple of exchanges certainly indicate the strong possibility that Levi and Bristol are involved. Tylor immediately posts to Rachelle (the sister of Johnny – who has been identified as Bristol's boyfriend prior to Levi) "ARE YOU SERIOUS"

Again, why do we think this has anything to do with Bristol? Because just a couple hours later, Lanesia then posts back to Rachelle:

yea i heard and #### no never again she messed that up to many times and i aint one to talk shit about a girl and go be tight with them but no im not she totally messed up by Fn my Xbf

These exchanges indicate that something surprising was revealed in late January 2008. Lanesia's "yea I heard" can only mean there is new information which involved a girl who was "fn" Lanesia's "xbf," and from our research, the only ex-boyfriend of Lanesia was Levi Johnston. And, although Levi had been linked with several other girls in 2005 and 2006, from 2007 on, the only two girls mentioned in conjunction with Levi were Lanesia herself and Bristol Palin. It would be easy to say that "new shocking" info would be that Bristol was pregnant. Yet – two of the comments specifically mention just sexual activity – as if that might be the "new" thing, which then becomes hard to explain in the context of someone wanting to beat Bristol up FOR Lanesia at least four months earlier.

And then… in this sequence… nothing more.

We can only come back to what was said before: For a popular girl who had an active social life and many friends, and who had been a regular MySpace user, the complete absence of any mention of Bristol through this time period is astonishing. It's important to reiterate that the only comments we can link to her (with the one exception of the comment from September 2007, which makes reference to her being "beat up") do not contain her name.

For example, in April 2008, 8 days before Trig’s official birthdate, an older Wasilla teen named Dannie, someone not closely connected to the primary social group, makes this curious comment on a friend’s MySpace:

April 10, 2008 12:03 AM
…i want to tell you something kinda funny so when you call remind me about the governor’s kid…

Something to do with Bristol?

After that comment, there is nothing more to be found in MySpace about any of the Palins until the end of August. The pregnancy that was announced by the Palin campaign on September 1, 2008 was said to be an “open secret” in Wasilla. Really? Because in spite of the fact that many of the teens’ MySpace profiles were used extensively between April-August 2008, neither Mercede nor any other person makes even one mention of Bristol or the pregnancy. Not one.

Mercede's MySpace page was public until midafternoon on September 1, 2008. We have screen shots of the entire thing. She is so close to her older brother Levi that she had posted several pictures of them together, in which she calls him "her best friend" in the world. She has had his name tattooed on her wrist. Yet not one post about this exciting "open secret" that her dear brother was to become a father, which would make her a new auntie? No.

Numerous comments exist on many girls' pages in which pregnancies, showers, and babies are discussed, in some cases with great excitement and positive feelings. But regarding Bristol, Levi and the Tripp pregnancy... well, it doesn't seem to exist. The only thing we do have is a photograph of Bristol and Mercede together from April 25, 2008 in which Mercede refers to Bristol as her sister-in-law. This is after Trig's birth but before it is plausible that it was known that she was pregnant with Tripp.

Then, the morning of August 29, 2008 arrives, and with it, John McCain’s announcement of his running mate.

On that day, there is an occasional comment along the lines of --hey, did you see who got picked?--but generally nothing more than that. But on the afternoon of the 29th, Dannie (the one who had heard something "kinda funny" about the governor’s kid) does have a specific question, and she poses it to another Wasilla teen, Zach, again someone not tightly connected to the primary group. Because Zach's MySpace profile is private, we cannot see the initial question to him, but his answer is this:

August 29, 2008 3:39 PM
I know who started it. Tylor [last name deleted by PD]
I think that’s how you spell his name

There is no context surrounding this remark to aid interpretation. All we know is that Zach says that Tylor started “it”. Because Zach identifies Tylor by his first and last name, we know for sure that this is the same Tylor who was involved in the exchanges regarding the surprising news back in January.

Fast forward a bit to September 3, the day of Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention. Not only is the Palin/Johnston pregnancy an “open secret” in Wasilla, it’s now the most famous pregnancy in the entire United States. The governor of Alaska is on the ticket; her oldest daughter has been outed as a pregnant unwed teen on the national news; said daughter and her hockey star fiance are being seen all over the world. That should warrant quite a few MySpace comments. No need to keep it on the down-low anymore. Right? Or at least a couple of comments? Actually: zero.

Well, maybe just one, a cryptic question--asked by a girl named Kelci of Kaila (the same Kaila who was involved in the exchange with Jenny Jo about beating up Bristol a year earlier):

September 3, 2008 6:06 PM
bp?

Kaila's answer is not known because Kelci's profile is private, but, after receiving a response, she comments back to Kaila

September 4, 2008 6:02 PM
mmmmm gotcha. that’s what I figured but I wasn’t fasho
whadddup?

For the uninitiated, "fasho" in teen speak means "for sure." So Kelci is saying, "That's what I thought [about whatever it is they were talking about concerning "bp"] but I wasn't sure."

But what could it be? If we're to believe that Bristol’s pregnancy is an "open secret" in Wasilla, and that Levi and Bristol are an established, even engaged, couple, why is it that the only possible mention of it at this point (OR throughout the entire previous summer OR during the entire following campaign) is this one girl who dares use only initials? Hmmm.

And what could this girl be asking? We believe she is a relative of Kaila (though we can't confirm that 100%); she also lives in the Wasilla area, and she is friends with many of the same people as Kaila. So she wouldn’t be confirming simply that Bristol is pregnant, because everyone already knows that, right?

So what are my conclusions?

1. Bristol Palin was "scrubbed" from MySpace as of an arbitrary date. This date seems to be around July 1, 2007, though the date the scrubbing was actually done is completely unknown. Numerous comments from before this date existed as of September 1, 2008 (though many have since been removed) including one fairly troublesome one about her mother questioning whether or not she was pregnant. Only one comment exists which mentions her by name after that date, and NO comments from her.

2. There was chatter about something surprising, even shocking, in late January 2008 that involved Levi Johnston, and in all probability, Bristol Palin. This was far too early for her to have been pregnant with Tripp. However, considering earlier comments, it seems too late to have been simply that the two young people were in a relationship.

3. There is not a single mention of Bristol, Levi, or Bristol's pregnancy throughout the entire summer of 2008, even though it was supposed to have been an "open secret" in Wasilla. A single comment, mentioning Bristol only by using her initials, strongly suggests on September 3rd that there is something more going on than just the supposed "open secret. " It was something that there was gossip about, something that some young people in Wasilla (who should have been connected with the group) were unaware of. Something about Tripp's pregnancy was not "as presented" on September 1, 2008, though what exactly that is is completely unclear. Dates? Who the father might be?

The MySpace information is confusing, at time contradictory, and terribly incomplete. Yet, overall, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the timelines of neither the Trig nor the Tripp pregnancies seem plausible based on what is being said (and not said) among teenagers in Wasilla.

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

PS. Those who have read this far (!) will probably note that no comment has been made about a curious post from late June, 2007, in which Bristol states:

:( now im a mother duck for that baby!

(For those who don't know, the ":( " is a "frowny face" indicating unhappiness.)

This comment has caused quite a bit of private debate and discussion among those affiliated with this blog. Certainly, it is hard to say it is not significant: it is the second to last thing still available from Bristol on MySpace (only her "now I'm a slut" comment came later, by a couple of minutes) AND – good grief! - it mentions a baby!

But what does it mean? It has been suggested that she is being forced to gestate a child, like a mother duck sitting on eggs. Several of the Palin Deception researchers subscribe to this theory, and find it extremely significant.

It has also been suggested that, in spite of the timing, it has nothing to do with Bristol being pregnant or not pregnant. I for one find the use of the phrase "that baby" to indicate that she is talking about something separate from her, possibly a child (Piper, who was five at the time?) she was being forced to babysit for. (And ducklings follow mother ducks around constantly.)

If Bristol Palin had said, ":( now im a mother duck for THIS baby!" I would be saying that I found it highly indicative of pregnancy. But the use of the word "that" to me means she is talking about something she is not happy about, something she has actual disdain for. Most teenaged women who become pregnant and decide to keep the baby tend to be excited about it (naively perhaps, but still excited.) The negative tone of this comment indicates to me that she is talking about something else. I do not know what.

But I am presenting both sets of thoughts here, and the reader needs to decide for himself on this one.

A Welcome and an Explanation

2009-04-11T19:50:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Space Part 2

2009-04-08T14:55:00.000-07:00

I need to provide a quick update. This week, National Enquirer ran an article about a former boyfriend of Bristol Palin's, and named him. Several other teens involved in this story have also been named in national media. We have reconsidered our decision NOT to "name names." We are using teens' real names in our posts. However, we are not using any last names, nor are we linking to the actual MySpace pages.

Please note that at the end of this post, there is a .pdf attachment which contains screen shots of the comments used in this post as well as the documentation that we used to prove that the redacted MySpace account that we have identifed as Bristol's was in fact hers.

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

What ARE the most critical points learned from our extensive MySpace analysis?

1. Bristol Palin began dating beginning when she was 15 or 16. There are strong indications that she was sexually active. Statements that were made to the press (including one from Levi himself) during the campaign that Levi and Bristol had dated for three years or "since freshman year" are no where borne out according to MySpace. If they had dated for three years as of September, 2008, that would have meant their relationship went back to September 2005. In fact, there is no evidence at all that Bristol and Levi dated prior to June 2007. This appears to be a complete fabrication, designed to show the young couple as stable and committed, when in fact they were neither.

2. In the spring of 2007, when Bristol would have been 16 ½ years old, Sarah Palin overheard a telephone conversation between Bristol and a young man named Johnny. Johnny is someone who appears to have been a very good friend -- Bristol commented to him frequently (and usually innocuously) during the time she was in Juneau, often signing her name with a heart. Johnny has been identified multiple places (including just this week in National Enquirer) as Bristol Palin’s boyfriend prior to Levi.

On this occasion, the phone conversation between Johnny and Bristol that Gov. Palin overheard led her to confront Bristol about whether or not she was pregnant. Even if Bristol was NOT pregnant at that time, it surely had to indicate that Gov. Palin suspected her daughter was sexually active. This would make her purported “surprise” at the news Bristol WAS allegedly pregnant with Tripp (a full year later) disingenuous at best.

5/14/2007 Bristol to Johnny:
ha ha, my mom was asking me who I was on the phone with last night, and she said she heard everything I was saying.. now she thinks im pregnant…ahaha call me later if you'd like

Then there was these further exchanges between Bristol and Johnny.

5/17/2007 Bristol to Johnny:
haha, sorry I still had my phone taken away, but I got it back today, so you can call whenever (heart)

5/20/2007 Bristol to Johnny:
if you don’t call me tonight im gonna freak out.

5/27/2007 Bristol to Johnny:
I waited for you to call me last night.

It’s also very interesting to note that these three comments all come within days of the phone call that Palin overheard which led her to wonder if Bristol was pregnant.

Levi Johnston and Johnny were close friends. The National Enquirer mentions this. In their article, they claim that “Levi and Johnny had a big blowup during their sophomore year in high school when Levi and Bristol hooked up while she was still with Johnny.” Our research actually shows something a bit different.

First, there is no indication that anything started between Levi and Bristol “during their sophomore year.” During the second half of Bristol’s sophomore year, she was attending Juneau-Douglas High School in Juneau, and, as late as May 20th (after school ended) she was sending notes to Johnny along the lines of what was quoted above: “If you don’t call me tonight I will freak out.” However, there is some indication that Bristol and Levi began dating in June of that year. Bristol makes one comment to Levi that makes it clear that Levi had left clothing at Bristol’s house. Hmmm. Perhaps they were swimming.

However, more interesting, several comments indicate that while there was a grudge between Levi and Johnny, it was Levi that held the grudge as recently as May of 2008, not the other way around, which should have been the case if Bristol had dumped Johnny FOR Levi. We have several comments between Johnny and Mercede Johnston which makes it sound as if Mercede is trying to patch things up between her brother and Johnny. Johnny is obviously hoping there will be a reconciliation from the tone of the comments. Why there was a grudge that persisted until May of last year, and why Levi seems to be the angry one is completely unclear.

3. Levi Johnston had multiple girlfriends from 2005 on, including one long time serious (though “on again – off again”) relationship with a girl named Lanesia. She later expressed great unhappiness over Levi's loss.

Levi was not a lonely lad. He appears to have "dated" at least five girls, not counting Bristol Palin, from this group alone. Indications are that he was regarded as somewhat of a catch.

One comment indicates that Levi was "messing with" two girls (neither was Bristol Palin) simultaneously on one occasion. One of the girls involved denied the accusation categorically, but the fact that the accusation was made at all (and by girls who knew Levi very well) indicates that they considered it a possibility.

It is not clear from the MySpace comments when Bristol and Levi's relationship began, but it seems to be June of 2007. Lanesia was claiming in May 2007 that she and Levi were back together (and Bristol was not in Wasilla for most of late winter and spring of 2007).

There was discussion in September 2007 between two friends of Lanesia, (Kaila and Jenny Jo,) claiming that Jenny Jo at some point in the past, had planned to beat Bristol up for Lanesia. This comment, interestingly, is the ONLY comment that is visible on MySpace dated after June of 2007 that either is from Bristol Palin or mentions her by name. My speculation is that, when MySpace was "scrubbed," this comment was overlooked somehow.

9/28/2007 Kaila to Jenny Jo:
haha, you were gonna fight Bristol for Lanesia.. idk, it was freakin hilarious though. you were getttin ready to take on like 394083 people yourself. haha..funny ass shit. call me tonight bia.

4. In the interview that Greta Van Susteren did with Bristol Palin on February 17, 2009, Bristol told Ms. Susteren that she did not know any other girls who had been pregnant or had babies. This is totally false and seems like a pointless lie. Numerous girls in Bristol's circle at Wasilla had already had babies.

5. Track Palin (whose has been accused of being no slacker in the party department himself) became so worried about his sister's behavior (though the exact details are not clear) at one point that he actually "outed" her to their parents, calling her a "stoner."

4/18/2007 Bristol to Johnny
tracks little bitch ass decited to tell my parents im a stoner..hes so tight..and when I get home, im gonna kick him in the balls.

6. Levi Johnston had another MySpace account (which has also been removed) and which he did use, which was different from the one that has received so much publicity. (The one on which he claimed he was a f***ing redneck and did not want children.)

However, possibly the most critical thing the MySpace analysis shows is what's NOT there. Prior to August 29, 2008 most of Bristol Palin's presence on MySpace was deliberately removed, and the "scrubbing" appears to go back, not to spring of 2008, which would have been when Bristol's pregnancy with Tripp should have commenced (and there may well have been “chatter” that the McCain campaign did not want made public), but into the summer of 2007, a full year earlier. The last comment made from the account we know to have been Bristol's came in June 2007. Going back into 2006, Bristol used MySpace frequently, commenting often on friends' pages, in a couple of cases as many as three short and quick comments in one day. What's left from spring 2007 shows that Bristol was unhappy in Juneau and liked using MySpace to keep in contact with her Wasilla friends. Levi Johnston does not appear to have been a heavy MySpace user, but he definitely had a separate account, different from the one that contained the well-publicized comment that he did not want children – and that account is also now gone.

As has been said earlier, it's hard to recreate what was scrubbed after the fact. What's left from after June of 2007 are:
1. No comments at all from Bristol dated after June 25, 2007.
2. No MySpace page from Bristol, and the page that Levi Johnston actually seemed to use is also gone.
3. One sole comment that mentions Bristol Palin by name.
4. A few cryptic comments that we believe may refer to Bristol Palin. In one, the initials bp are used. In another, there is reference to "the governor's kid." In a third, a comment that we believe refers to Bristol talks about "you know who."

And what was Bristol's last known comment to any friend? On June 25, 2007 she wrote:

ha ha im a slut. but sounds good...what number?

bristolfinalpdf.pdf

Coming soon: What does MySpace say specifically about whether or not Bristol Palin might have been pregnant in 2007-2008?

Message. In. A. Bottle.

2009-04-06T22:26:00.001-07:00

Well, not exactly in a bottle. More like on the Tyra Banks show.

Since the beginning of the controversy about who had given birth to Trig Palin a set of pictures that were published some time prior to May 5, 2008 on Mercede Johnston's MySpace page has given those of us who have tried to solve the riddle, basically, fits. The pictures have been discussed in several other posts on this blog, here. Here's one of them, the other two (one of Mercede with Bristol and one of Mercede with Sarah) can be seen at the posts linked above.

The captions - identifying Trig as Mercede's "baby brother" and Sarah Palin as "mommy in law" could never be adequately explained through "known" relationships. Certainly, many people - myself among them - thought that the captions indicated that Trig Palin was something "special" to Mercede Johnston, something far MORE special than just the younger brother of a good friend, though just how that was remained "obscure" as the captions, while terribly intriguing, were difficult to explain.

No matter how one "sliced and diced," Trig Palin was NOT Mercede's brother unless somehow her mother (Sherrie Johnston) was also Trig's mother... and that seemed beyond credibility... or if somehow Mercede's father was also Trig's father. But it never was possible to explain why, in such a circumstance, Sarah Palin would be motivated to fake a pregnancy. If Trig were Levi's son, Trig would be Mercede's nephew, and she did not say that. If he were merely her future sister-in-law's younger brother, Mercede's enthusiasm was hard to explain.

Initially, many people thought the pictures were taken in a hospital setting. After Gov. Palin did several interviews after the election in her home, we were able to prove conclusively that the photos were in fact taken in the Palin kitchen. While interesting, this made the photos in a way more obscure, since now they could only be dated to some point "before May 5th." We know this because on May 5th, Mercede received a comment about them on her MySpace page. Other than that, they could not be dated.

Today, Mercede Johnston, Levi Johnston, and Sherrie Johnston (their mother) appeared on the Tyra Banks show. In the background, numerous still photos were shown.

Including this one:

I've got news for everyone. Mercede is wearing exactly the same outfit, down to the earrings, as the photos released last year. Her hair is identical. The baby appears to be wearing the same outfit. Levi is sitting in the same chair in the Palin kitchen.
Compare for yourself:

This is NOT a photo of Levi with Tripp Johnston, allegedly born December 27, 2008.

This is a photo of Levi Johnston cradling tenderly Trig Palin, allegedly born April 18, 2008. It was taken the same day as the photos that Mercede put up on her MySpace page, some time before May 5th 2008.

Why in the world would this photo be selected for release on the Tyra Banks show unless Mercede is trying to send us a message, loud and clear? Surely, if Tripp IS Levi's child (and Trig is the son of his ex future mother-in-law) there would be no earthly reason to release photos of Trig with Levi on a show that was supposed to be about current events, i.e., Tripp's birth and the current relationship with Tripp's mother. But.. someone in the Johnston clan selected this photo. Of Levi cuddling Trig. Now almost a year ago. Intentionally. So I... and other "anonymous bloggers..." would see it. And we have.

Mercede, message received. Thank you.

MySpace Part One

2009-04-05T21:17:00.000-07:00

First, this post has been greatly delayed as I struggled – with the assistance of the researchers who compiled all of this material for me – concerning the issue of just how much material to post – and how to present it.

Ultimately, we have made the decision not to release nearly as much information on the blog as we had originally intended. Instead, we will be posting much longer – and more detailed information – on the website proper.

We've ultimately made the following decision that both for this blog post and for the web posting of more extensive data, only Bristol Palin, Levi Johnston, and Mercede Johnston will be identified by name. (The names of all other MySpace teens (regardless of age) have been changed to completely random "fake" names). Bristol, Levi, and Mercede have voluntarily spoken to the press; thus they are now considered "fair game." There is considerable evidence that Bristol has made misleading statements to the press on more than one occasion, if not outright lied.

At this time, I plan on doing three posts concerning the MySpace material: this one, a second which discusses an overview, and a third which considers explicitly whether or not Bristol was pregnant at the time she was announced to have been pregnant (i.e., roughly early April to late December 2008.)

Is Bristol Palin Trig’s mother? This is a question which, frankly, we preferred to avoid as much as possible for months, instead focusing on the discrepancies in Sarah Palin’s implausible tale. The rumors and reports that Bristol Palin was pregnant originated well before she could possibly have been pregnant with Tripp. This is beyond dispute. If Tripp Palin was born the last week in December, 2008, Bristol would have become pregnant around the first week in April 2008. Yet Sue Williams, a Wasilla caterer who spoke to the press within hours of Palin's nomination as VP (and who is NOT a Palin supporter) claimed that Willow's eighth grade boyfriend was telling people in Wasilla early in April, prior to Trig's birth on April 18th, that Bristol was pregnant. So positive was Ms. Williams of her information that she insisted late in August that Bristol was well into her third trimester and due "soon." Sarah discussed (and denied) rumors that Bristol was pregnant with Bill McAllister (at the time a news reporter, though later he became her press secretary) at some point before she announced her own pregnancy on March 5th. In one of my earlier posts, these reports of pregnancy rumors and of her unexplained absence from school were detailed in depth. There has also been much discussion on the blog about Bristol’s absence from any events from late fall until spring, with the possible (and as yet unconfirmed) exception of an event for the American Heart Association on February 15, 2008.

The MySpace material in many cases raises as many questions as it answers. On this blog, I have tried to avoid including information that, while shocking, has no bearing on the central question of who Trig's mother is or the general credibility of the Palin family. We plan on releasing far more of the MySpace material soon on the website itself, largely in a "raw" format. Readers will be free to peruse the information and draw their own conclusions.

One of the first questions that will be asked is how we verified who any of these people are. How can we be sure? For those who are not familiar with how MySpace works, I will give a brief overview. There are two kinds of information that are available on MySpace. The first is material on pages that are public. Public means exactly that. Anyone can see and peruse the entire page. We can see photos, music choices, quotes, and other information he or she has posted identifying him or herself. For those who have never been on MySpace, someone's "front page" on MySpace is a bit like a scrapbook page that is public, created for everyone to look at.

There is no requirement on MySpace that a person use his or her real name. Often people do, but equally often they do not. When a young person posts a picture of himself and says, "My name is Joe Smith and I go to Such and So High School," it is usually easy to verify that that person is who he say he is. Sometimes, of course, the person does not use a real name, though quite often they do identify themselves accurately as to town and school, so there is an additional step that must be taken, (based on photos and friend connections) to identify that "Hot Sue" for example, is Susan Jones. In our case, for example, Mercede Johnston's MySpace handle is "Sadie."

The second way to get information about people is that we can see comments ON public pages FROM the person, even if that person's page itself is private or in some cases deleted from MySpace completely. In this case, it is often very difficult to be sure of what some comments mean, because we are only seeing half of the comments, like hearing half of a phone conversation. Sometimes you can get a very good idea of what the conversation is about; other times, you are lost.

Bristol Palin's page was deleted (or possibly made private, then later deleted) prior to her mother's pick as VP, though we do not know when. In fact, after June 2007, there is only one comment that we can find on anyone's page that mentions Bristol by name, though there are several comments that use her initials that we are sure refer to her. This is very odd, since Bristol was a popular girl who had many friends. Furthermore, according to the McCain campaign and media reports it was common knowledge that Levi and Bristol were expecting a baby in late 2008. Did this warrant a comment on NO ONE'S page? Not one person thought to mention it? Or – more likely – were comments "scrubbed" at some point? Scrubbing is very difficult to prove after the fact, unless one is watching for it prior to the scrubbing occurring. For example, we know comments that had been visible on some of the Wasilla friends' pages through November 2008, were removed in November, after the election. We can prove this easily because we have screen shots of the pages both before and after. But since no one was watching the pages of Wasilla Alaska teenagers prior to late August, 2008, the full story is very difficult to piece together. However, one oddity we noted: one young woman, a close friend of Bristol's, who we will refer to as "Fanny" normally received dozens of comments a month. Suddenly, in a period of more than a month in the Spring of 2007, absolutely none. We can verify Fanny was active on MySpace – she was leaving comments on other friends' pages but her page was scrubbed completely. Proof of anything? No. Mysterious? Very.

So, how do we know what (few) comments remain are actually from Bristol Palin? We can see that the comments come from someone named "Bristol," but how do we know for sure who this is? We can be sure it's Bristol Palin, for the following reason: comments that were made by this Bristol can be indisputably tied to known events in Bristol Palin's life, as follows:

1. On October 12th, 2006, Bristol commented on a friend's page that she would be driving in four days. This corresponds exactly to Bristol Palin's sixteenth birthday.
2. In June of 2007, Bristol made several references to working at Nordstrom's. From Sarah Palin's financial disclosure forms, we know that Bristol Palin worked at Nordstrom's at that time.
3. On one occasion, Bristol makes very negative comments about having to attend an event in Glenallen Alaska. We know from Sarah Palin's schedule that an event, which included the "First Family" occurred on that day.

Does the MySpace page material answer with any certainty whether Bristol Palin gave birth to Trig OR whether Sarah did not? No, it does not. But it gives clear glimpses into the Palin family life, and specifically into Bristol Palin, that are sharply at odds with the all American family that was portrayed to the media. This is particularly relevant coming now, as Levi Johnston has purportedly told Tyra Banks (in an interview to be shown tomorrow) that he was allowed to spend the night openly at the Palin home, even though, according to him, Gov. Palin almost certainly knew that he and Bristol were having sex. I believe that, in spite of Palin's heated denials, this is confirmed from her daughter's own MySpace comments. At one point, she jokes with Levi that he apparently left some clothes at her home.

The view of teen life in Wasilla Alaska gleaned from the fifty or so MySpace pages that our researchers have followed diligently shows a sad, disappointing, in fact, very upsetting tale. If these are the family values that the McCain campaign hoped Gov. Palin would bring to America, all I can say is "no thanks." Drug and alcohol use is detailed, even boasted about regularly, by teens as young as fourteen and fifteen. Young women who are no more than fifteen discuss who is f***ing whom with the ease of a discussion about who will pick up the pizza. Bristol Palin, presented to the country by her mother as an honor student, at age 16 does not spell the word "decided" correctly.

Coming tomorrow: Six specific things the MySpace analysis shows us.

My name is... (what?) My name is... (who?)

2009-03-30T14:07:00.000-07:00

In the world of social networking for young adults, MySpace is one of the leaders in the field. Sharing pictures, comments, videos, and music is incredibly easy. MySpace profiles can be personalized in hundreds of different ways, letting people express their individuality freely, if sometimes chaotically. Indeed, looking at some pages is enough to bring on an instant migraine.

With all of the fun to be had at the click of a mouse, it’s easy to forget the warning: don’t post anything on the Internet that you wouldn’t want your mother (or, for that matter, your spouse, boss, or local law enforcement agents) to see. During the past week alone, MySpace use has contributed to the investigation of an animal control officer in Virginia,

http://www.wvec.com/news/norfolk/stories/wvec_local_032609_peta_ani...

the arrest of a 14-year-old girl for posting nude photos of herself,

http://www.nj.com/jjournal/stories/index.ssf?/base/xclude/123822159...

and a stabbing at a Texas middle school.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D973VKJ01...

Clearly, people post much on MySpace that, in retrospect, they may wish they had kept to themselves. Often, this information is viewable not only by those on one’s “friend list” but by the entire world, should we all care to look. Such is the case with the MySpace research on this blog. Everything to be published here was accessible to the general public at the time it was found. We have screen shots of all pages. Nothing was obtained by "hacking." Much of this information may still be public.

In order to make some sense out of the hundreds of comments received, we had to determine which (if any) had been left by Bristol and/or Levi. A curious aspect of MySpace is that comments posted are not necessarily deleted, even if the person who wrote the comments has cancelled his or her MySpace account. Many times, these comments remain visible for months, and, though the user name and picture may be gone, the anonymous comment will still link back to a page that contains the user’s MySpace ID number. Since there were no comments that clearly identified either Bristol or Levi right off the bat, the assumption was that we were dealing with deleted accounts.

In Bristol’s case, we received a tip on two comments that were made by a deleted account holder, but which linked back to the same MySpace user ID number:

Oct 12, 2006
surb what up?? haha yeah i know i know, you were right, but six days!!! waahoo, then ill be driving your lovley ass everywhere :)
love ya sruuuub - yo busump

June 19, 2007 (portion of comment)
ha ha yeah he changed my password on this to b-ris p. and I always think of him for sure.

In the first comment, the writer appears to be referencing her upcoming 16th birthday on October 18, 2006, which corresponds with Bristol’s 16th birthday. The second comment speaks for itself. There were other comments received as well that corroborate this particular account as belonging to Bristol.

At around the same time, we also received a tip on a comment left by a “levi” on the MySpace of a young man in the Wasilla area. It was a fairly routine comment, but it linked back not to a deleted account, but to a MySpace profile page that could only be described as “well-scrubbed”: no graphics, the barest of personal details, just three friends (two of which led to deleted accounts), and two comments (one of which was spam).

Although the personal details matched what we know about Levi (e.g., this “levi” is from Wasilla, his Zodiac sign matches Levi Johnston’s birthdate, and he states “I don’t want kids”), there was no easy way to tell if this was the Levi we were interested in. His is a popular name in Alaska, and after the news of Bristol’s pregnancy was released in September, fake Levi pages popped up on MySpace.

Then we realized that the only worthwhile comment remaining on this Levi’s page…came from the user ID number already identified as belonging to Bristol.

More on that to come in the next post.

Taking off the kid gloves

2009-03-27T06:38:00.000-07:00

For some time now it has been the policy of this blog that although some teen pages on MySpace are open to the public and available for anyone to see, I would not allow comments that mention any teens - minor or not - by name, nor provide links to specific pages. This policy still remains the same and readers are most welcome to contact me at info@palindeception.com if they discover anything which they believe to be pertinent to the investigation.

However after the events of the past weeks and after a lot of consideration, I now believe that the situation with regard to Bristol Palin has substantially changed. Bristol is now eighteen and since she has placed herself directly in the media spotlight by allowing herself to be interviewed by Greta Van Susteren and since it appears that she may have deliberately misled viewers in that interview as to the state of her relationship with the father of her child (among other things) I have decided that it is time to take off the kid gloves and apply the same treatment with regard to her as I have applied to her mother.

From the outset of this investigation we have focused on casting serious doubt on whether Sarah Palin was pregnant in 2008. To that end I think that we have achieved that through photo analysis, by the close scrutiny of her many conflicting statements regarding the pregnancy, by noting her contradictory behavior on numerous occasions and lastly through the revelation of the sheer implausibility of the wild ride.

Despite these considerations, and because Sarah has the benefit of doubt on her side, some people remain unconvinced that she did not give birth to Trig and that she is indeed his natural birth mother. Because of this I have no choice but to try to prove something more difficult, which is, who actually did give birth to Trig.

I believe that we have some compelling evidence which, at least, points us in the correct direction as to who did.

Over the months Palin Deceptions has received a vast amount of information from readers gleaned from MySpace pages which have provided remarkable insider views of the circumstances and happenings in Bristol Palin’s group of friends and acquaintances from 2006 until recently.

My research assistants have spent many hours evaluating the information to determine what could be presented publicly on this blog. Indeed some of the comments have been substantiated by corroborating evidence taken from the Palin family travel expense accounts and Palin’s Financial Disclosure Form for 2007 which were both recently released. Of course, all this information was publicly available on MySpace pages at one time, and some of it still is as I write. However, we must remember that many MySpace pages were changed to private and/or scrubbed when Sarah Palin became the GOP Vice presidential nominee at the end of August 2008 – and, remarkably, additional scrubbing took place after the end of the campaign in November. More recently, in February many previously public MySpace pages suddenly switched at the same time to private ones and so we cannot take it for granted that those that still do remain public will not switch to private accounts.

Bristol, Levi and Mercede have all spoken publicly to the press; and since they have chosen to do so, I feel no need to shield them from disclosure of the content of their own messages or those that refer to them. To address our concern for the privacy of the rest of the kids, who are caught up in this situation not of their own choosing, but because they are (or were) friends with Bristol or Levi, the research group has assigned codes to the people who are not already known publicly. This makes everything a bit more confusing, but we feel it is necessary. The researchers have also paraphrased or scrubbed some comments to remove or condense long parts that are not essential to this investigation. We are releasing only a small portion of the information, rather than all. Undoubtedly, those close to the situation in Alaska will be able to figure out the identities of some of these kids, but it is our request that their identities not be revealed.

There is more than the usual number of caveats with the post. First, the research group has tried to retain as much original text (even with many misspellings) as possible, but has paraphrased some messages; these are in italics. Second, most of the messages are akin to hearing only one side of a telephone conversation, so we do not claim to know the full context or response. Third, although Bristol and Levi put their own sites on private and scrubbed their messages or used anonymous profiles, we discovered some information that enabled us to verify their identity in the posts that we will present. Fourth, there are two boys named Levi in this group of friends; we have tried to be careful not to mix them up; we believe all the comments here refer to Levi Johnston. Finally, please bear in mind that the comments sometimes betray strong feelings of the moment or may be the product of an “altered state” – but let’s remember that these are (or were) kids and MySpace is an outlet for them to blow off steam. They may be angry with someone one day and in love the next. Let he (or she) who never made a mistake cast the first stone.

Stay tuned. MySpace material to follow shortly....

So Many Discrepancies, So Little Time...

2009-03-13T19:27:00.000-07:00

There are so many discrepancies in the pregnancy and birth stories of both Trig Palin and Tripp Johnston that it is sometimes hard to keep up with them all. You'd need a whole section in your Day Planner just to keep track of most of them. And lots of note cards and spread sheets and.... oh yes, that IS my desk.

Anyway...

When you least expect it, a new clue (or clues) seems to emerge that helps to clear the fog away from earlier statements. Happily, the recent publication of an unauthorized biography of Sarah Palin, Trailblazer by Lorenzo Benet, along with Greta Van Susteren’s interview of Sarah…er… Bristol Palin, offered us some new information that allows us to put a few more pieces of the birth-hoax puzzle together. (Who would have thought that the pro-Palin biography OR Greta’s interview would HELP us make our case? Is this poetic justice, or perhaps divine intervention, or what?)

Based on an (undocumented) birth date of December 27th, Tripp was conceived no earlier than April 2008, and arguably later as he was not presented to the world until mid-February (exactly as I predicted). So even Bristol could not have been aware of the pregnancy until late-April 2008, at the earliest.

Yet we know that rumors of the pregnancy preceded this time frame, so much so that Sarah herself tried to dispel the rumors prior to March 2008. The Anchorage Daily New wrote a story about the rumors on August 31, 2008 and as we now know, they pursued the story about the rumors again in the fall. We also know that, almost a year ago, a poster on reddit.com reported on the Bristol pregnancy rumor and said she was going to high school in Anchorage. Wasilla caterer Sue Williams stated on the record that Willow Palin's boyfriend was telling people in Wasilla before Trig was born that Bristol was pregnant.

In fact, there is so much to discuss regarding rumors of the pregnancy that I have decided to go into more detail on this subject in an upcoming post – today I am just going to focus on the question of when Bristol moved to Anchorage.

Why? Because this is important. Because it shows that in spite of months of time to get it right, this whole dumb bunch STILL just can't get their stories straight. First Dude has had his slip ups, including telling Greta Van Susteren that three of their children had traveled to the VP nomination announcement. Ooops. What about little number 4, Triggy Bear? Sarah - Lord knows - has changed her stories on Trig's pregnancy so many times we can't even list all of the blunders and even direct contradictions. And now... both Sarah Palin's sister, Heather Bruce, and Bristol Palin seems to have joined the ooops club.

First, let’s reintroduce Heather Bruce, Sarah’s sister, who lives in Anchorage near the West High School, where her daughter Lauden is a student. There seems to be no dispute that Bristol Palin lived with Heather Bruce during her pregnancy AND there seems to be no dispute that Bristol Palin lived with Heather Bruce in January and February of 2008, but somehow those two facts don't seem to collide into a simple conclusion in most people's minds: that a high likelihood exists that Bristol Palin WAS pregnant in January and February of 2008.

There is a plausible reason for this: That she had lived with Heather Bruce while pregnant was reported at the same time that Bristol’s pregnancy with Tripp was publicized, and many people assumed that the Tripp pregnancy was the pregnancy in question.

But now, adding to the earlier statements (which, it appears, some in the Palin camp may have forgotten were still floating around out there ), we have some new statements from both Heather Bruce and Bristol Palin that help clarify that this extended stay with Aunt Heather could not have been during Bristol’s pregnancy with Tripp. It was much earlier. Really big oops.

Let’s start by looking at some of the published reports on Bristol’s time living with Heather Bruce.

There is a report by Inside Edition, which says: “Halfway through the school year, about the time Bristol discovered she was pregnant, she transferred to another high school.” This report was aired on 9/2/2008, meaning it had to refer to a prior school year. This states explicitly and openly that Bristol found out she was pregnant "halfway through the school year." Unless Bristol Palin had the longest pregnancy on record, halfway through that school year, Tripp had not yet been conceived, but of course "someone" had to be pregnant with Trig. Half way through the school year would have been around December when "someone" would have been around twenty weeks. A very plausible and logical time for a first time mother to find out (or at least reveal to her family) that she is expecting. Why this statement has not received more scruitiny has always mystified me.

Another report, this one by the Washington Post, states that Bristol went mid-school-year to live with her aunt in Anchorage, finishing at the city's West High School.

The assistant principal of the Wasilla High School also confirmed that Bristol transferred from there halfway through the 2007-2008 school year: “Mark Okeson, the assistant principal at Wasilla High School told the Chicago Tribune that Bristol started her junior year last fall, in the town where Sarah Palin grew up. He said Bristol inexplicably transferred to an Anchorage high school midyear, leaving Levi behind. ‘I never heard the story why,’ he said.”

Not to be outdone, the National Enquirer reported this as well, with some additional details: “When Sarah found out the teen was pregnant by high schooler Levi Johnston, she was actually banished from the house. As part of the cover-up, Palin quickly transferred Bristol to another high school and made her move in with Sarah’s sister Heather 25 miles away!”

(Note here as well the interesting use of the phrase "cover-up." Nowhere has it ever been suggested that any attempt was made to cover up Tripp's pregnancy.)

This has been confirmed to me by several people in Wasilla - that there were definitely rumors in the area by December 2007 that Bristol Palin was pregnant. (Whether the rumors were TRUE is an open question, but that the rumors EXISTED is, in my opinion, NOT open to question or debate.)

These statements have been left to languish by the MSM for months, despite the obvious implication that Bristol Palin was pregnant by late 2007. I think that everyone can agree on one thing: this could NOT have been any pregnancy that ended on December 27, 2008 with the birth of Tripp Johnston. There are only two possibilities. The rumors were all false, or Bristol was pregnant in late 2007 with another child.

Now, in the recently published biography as reported in People Magazine, we have new info from Heather Bruce confirming that Bristol lived with her while pregnant and while going to Anchorage West HS. "While Bristol was pregnant last year, she was living in Anchorage with her aunt and uncle, Heather and Kurt Bruce, and working at two espresso shops – while also attending West High School. Levi was 40 miles away in Wasilla, but, ‘there was certainly no ban on them dating,’ reports Trailblazer. ‘Levi used to drive to Anchorage to take Bristol out.’”

We also have a confirmation from "Misty" in Anchorage that Bristol attended West High School in January and February, leaving sometime around mid to late February.

But let's do a little granny finger counting here. IF the birth date of Tripp Johnston is as reported (December 27th) and he was full term (reasonable considering his birth date) he would have been conceived around April 1st. A quick perusal of the Anchorage West High School's calendar from the 2007-2008 school year shows us that the last day of school was May 23rd. The earliest Bristol could even have suspected she was pregnant was mid to late April. So when would she have lived with Auntie Heather (while pregnant) and gone to school and worked? A week or so in May 2008? Who transfers someone to a new high school with, oh, three weeks left in the school year and then gets two jobs? Come on...

Adding support to our skepticism, we now also know from the Greta Van Susteren interview that Bristol claims to not have told Sarah and Todd Palin of her pregnancy with Tripp until the summer of 2008, after school was out. It's never been suggested anywhere that last fall during the campaign when she would have been pregnant with Tripp was she living in Anchorage, working and/ or attending school.

All of this makes it crystal clear that Bristol’s banishment to Anchorage could not have been for the Tripp pregnancy. As our perceptive bloggers have already pointed out, this also could explain why there are two vastly different accounts of how Bristol told Sarah she was pregnant, one of her sitting her parents down on a couch, the other of her chasing her mother around with a positive pregnancy stick.

So.. what's the truth here? As I have been forced to admit so often on this blog, I don't know. I do know that it is not biologically possible for a woman to have a baby on April 18th and have another (full term) on December 27th. That I can state with confidence.

This, then, leaves us only two possibilities.
A. If the same woman gave birth to both babies, the birth dates we have been given for the two children cannot be correct.
B. If the birth dates are correct, Trig and Tripp cannot have the same mother.

I vote A.

Coming Soon...

2009-03-05T08:27:00.000-08:00

I can't think of two more promising words for Palin Deception readers given Audrey's absence. Like so many of us, she leads a very busy life, and sometimes priorities warrant that she turn her attention to other things. These past few weeks have been especially busy for her, and just when she thought she was getting things back under control along comes The Flu.

I just spoke to her, and she wants you all to know that she's feeling more like herself and is preparing a new post with some very interesting photos that are sure to poke holes in more of Sarah's carefully crafted claims.

Until Audrey gets the post prepared and up, please consider this an open thread. But as moderator let me gently remind you that an open thread should not be considered a free-for-all. The general rules of civility apply, as does the long-standing restriction against topics that have been deemed forbidden by the blog owner.

I noted in an earlier thread that in Audrey's absence, Patrick, Kathleen, Mary G. and other members of the PD research team have done a marvelous job in keeping the discussion moving. There are other members of the team hard at work, too, and if there was ever a group that deserved a round of virtual applause it is these people.

So as Sarah Palin would say, give them a shout out. And look for Audrey to be back soon.

Morgan

PD Moderator

The Purloined Letter...

2009-02-16T07:43:00.000-08:00

…is Edgar Allan Poe’s famous story of the theft of a potentially damaging letter, and the clever way in which the amateur sleuth C. Auguste Dupin recovers the letter. Perhaps we “pathetic bloggers” are modern-day incarnations of Dupin, using our wits (and the Internet!) to try to solve the mystery of Trig Palin’s birth. In this spirit, let’s turn our attention back to another letter – this one is not “purloined” but is suspicious and certainly deserves more attention than it has received in this real-life “detective story.”

The Purloined Letter, like the CBJ letter, is a wonderful play between revelation and concealment. CBJ's letter would appear to be something simple but close examination reveals that the structure and contents are actually highly suggestive (one could say convoluted) and open to many interpretations.

To review: after delaying for weeks, at 10:30 p.m. on November 3, 2008, barely hours before Election Day, the McCain-Palin Campaign released a letter regarding Sarah Palin’s medical history. The odd timing of the release of this letter ensured that it would not receive any scrutiny prior to the election, and given their election defeat the next day, it has received little scrutiny since. In fact, ask most anyone who could be considered "pro-Palin," and they will tell you, indignantly, that of course Gov. Palin released her medical "records." In fact, she never did anything of the sort.

Questions surrounding the letter were raised several months ago on the blog, but I did not have the opportunity at the time to investigate or address them in any detail, so frankly, this issue went on the back burner. Then, in early January, there was an extraordinary email exchange between Governor Palin and the editor of the Anchorage Daily News, Pat Dougherty. These emails made clear that ADN had assigned reporter Lisa Demer to report on the conspiracy story itself, to document how, what Dougherty calls "nutty nonsense" has nevertheless persisted for so many months. In conjunction with this, Demer was to try to “report the facts of Trig's birth thoroughly enough to kill the nonsense once and for all.” The amazing thing is that the emails reveal that, despite contacting Dr. Baldwin-Johnson (and others), Demer still – as recently as two months ago - did not receive the information ADN needed to “put this nonsense to rest.”

How is one to interpret this? Reading between the lines, I believe that ADN contacted Dr. Baldwin-Johnson to corroborate the birth story on several occasions – but she has not, ever, in clear, simple, unequivocal terms, been willing to do so. This is - in fact - astonishing.

Cathy Baldwin Johnson has never given a simple statement that Trig Palin was born at Mat-Su Hospital on April 18th, that Sarah Palin is his biological mother, and that she - Dr. Baldwin-Johnson - was physically present at the delivery. She would not do this at the following junctures:
1. Back in April, when Trig Palin was allegedly born. She gave ambiguous statements to the press about the circumstances of the birth (several of which contradicted explicitly statements Gov. Palin made) and then she clammed up.
2. On August 31st (when announcing it would have scotched the necessity of announcing – the next day – seventeen year old Bristol's pregnancy);
3. In the letter released before the election
4. To the ADN in December when they asked AGAIN.

The questions that this leaves are astounding. Dougherty states unequivocally that he has no personal doubts that Sarah Palin is Trig Palin's mother, yet never is willing to confront – head on – the rank inconsistency that the Governor's own physician will not corroborate her birth story.

As a result, I decided that it was time to delve further into the questions raised by the letter, and Dr. Baldwin-Johnson’s involvement in this case. I asked one of my research assistants to summarize the problems with the letter; that summary is here. We are releasing it in pdf form as it is quite long - five pages - and contains numerous legal citations.

To summarize this pdf: This letter is the only documentation that has ever been provided by anyone about the circumstances of Trig Palin's birth. Yet it was not released by the doctor; it was not actually signed by the doctor; it has never been authenticated by the doctor; it contains information which the doctor could not know first-hand; it contains erroneous information; and most notably, it does not ever say that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Palin. The letter's unprofessional appearance, modified electronic signature and lack of clear factual statements give rise to numerous questions about its legitimacy, and some have suggested that these may be a deliberate ploy to allow Dr. Baldwin-Johnson “deniability” – that is, grounds to claim that she is not legally responsible for the letter.

The problems with the November 3rd letter raise new questions about Dr. Baldwin-Johnson’s involvement, not only with the letter, but with the entire mystery of Trig’s birth. It is time to explore the medical, ethical and legal issues regarding this case.

To be continued…

Once and For All...

2009-02-03T11:44:00.001-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threats?

2009-02-01T09:58:00.001-08:00

We have received numerous queries today in comments asking whether I have received personal threats. This queries have been precipitated by the disappearance of a short-lived blog and website, which was taken down yesterday, supposedly in response to threats.

I can state categorically that I have received my share of what I consider "hate mail," filled with suggestions about what I should do and/or how I should do it. Many contain explicit anatomical suggestions, aspersions on my education and parentage, and many interesting accusations and theories about who I "actually" am. (My favorite of all time was the suggestion that I am actually Andrew Sullivan, and the writer was positive of this. His reasoning was brilliant. Andrew and Audrey both start with the letter "A." Voila. Proof positive that we are the same person. While I am flattered that anyone could think that my writing is any where near the caliber of Mr. Sullivan's, this is not, in fact, true.)

Another popular topic in negative mail is to speculate on the "true" source of my funding. It's interesting to me that I have received about an equal number of letters accusing me of being a shill for the Democrats and being a front for "other" conservative Republicans (think Huckabee or Romney) who "hate" Palin and want her out of the way.

Hate mail aside, I want to reassure all readers: I have never received a piece of email that I consider actually threatening in any way, shape or form.

So... Where's Tripp?

2009-01-28T16:20:00.000-08:00

Seriously.

This isn't like an earring you lost in your carpet that you might not see for a couple of weeks or months, and then, voila, there it is. It's not like the remote that is surely down in your sofa. Or all those damn socks under your drier.

This is a baby. A baby that is the alleged result of a pregnancy that was the primary "proof" that Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, nominee for Vice-President of the United States, was the biological mother of Trig Palin, and had not faked a pregnancy last April. Since it is indisputable that there WERE rumors that Bristol was pregnant last spring, Tripp's birth is a compelling piece of evidence that Trig is Sarah's because it proves with near certainty that Bristol cannot be. So Gov. Palin should be eager to show him, to put this "ridiculous lie" to rest once and for all.

But no. What we have instead is a situation that, to quote a friend, "goes beyond strange into the incomprehensible." I could not have said it better.

So far, no one outside of the immediate family has claimed to have seen this child. No pictures have been released. No hospital has been identified as the place of the birth.

Let's review: On December 29th, late in the afternoon Eastern Time, people.com posted an announcement that Bristol Palin had given birth. The source was Bristol's great-aunt (so the alleged baby's great great aunt,) Colleen Jones, who, we learned later had heard of the birth in an email from her brother-in-law Chuck "Sarah's Water Broke" Heath. Great-great-aunt Colleen, readers should be reminded, does not live in Alaska; she lives in Washington state. For your viewing pleasure, here are two interviews with Ms Jones, here and here (from during the campaign - nothing to do with the baby.)

It later was revealed that People had learned of the birth by cold-calling Ms. Jones. Over the next 24 hours, the actual day of the birth as well as the baby's birth weight fluctuated a bit, but the consensus finally was that the baby was born Saturday, December 27th, weighing seven pounds, seven ounces.

As far as I can determine, no news outlet EVER confirmed independently that the birth had occurred. Every media source that I can find that ran the story, including the Anchorage Daily News, did so by quoting the People.com announcement.

Initially, Gov. Palin's office would not comment on the blessed event (though they certainly did not issue any denial stating that the story was not true.) I discussed this in a previous post. Then, however, five days after the alleged birth, and two days after the news "broke" in People, Gov. Palin's office did confirm that the birth had occurred.

Since then, what do we have? Lots of lovely pictures of the happy young mom with her precious newborn? What about impromptu shots with Grandma Sarah and Grandpa Todd? No and no. We don't even have Great-Granddad Chuck Heath holding the bundle of joy. (At least we got that with Trig!)

What we do have is ONE interview, again in the ever-helpful People, from "other" grandmother, Sherry Johnston. She is the only person who has actually stated that she has seen the baby, here in the online article, and again in the print version of the magazine, in the issue dated January 19th, 2008.

But... hold it. A few things just plain don't add up with Granny Johnston's interview. First, although the issue was dated January 19th, it was actually available ten full days earlier, on the ninth. Allowing for printing and distribution schedules, it's hard to place this interview any later than the fifth. OK, so that's nine days after Tripp's alleged birth. Given the fact that most moms stay in the hospital 36-48 hours after the birth, it's reasonable to suggest that Bristol and her newborn would have come home from the hospital on Monday the 29th. So... at the time Sherry Johnston spoke to People, Tripp could not have been home from the hospital more than a week. Keep that in mind when you read the quote:

In their first weeks as parents, Levi and Bristol shared parenting duties. By day, says Sherry, they tended to Tripp and sorted through gifts from well-wishers; by night they traded off diaper detail and the task of soothing a crying baby.

Weeks? A typo? Maybe.

But then, ouch! Another oddity rears its inconvenient head. On January 5th, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Levi had quit his North Slope oil job, and that he was flying home. Wait. Wasn't he already "home?' Wasn't he living with the Palins in their (according to People Magazine) four bedroom home that had just gotten "busier?" Wasn't he sharing diaper duty? From Wasilla to Alaska's North Slope is 700 miles. Travelocity lists only three flights a day from Barrow to Anchorage, at prices ranging from $700 to $1050 round trip. Not exactly an easy or cheap jaunt.

In fact, that Anchorage Daily News' article about Levi makes no mention whatsoever of the fact that he had "only recently returned" to the North Slope or "had only been back on the job a day since the birth of his child," or something similar... Read the article again, keeping in mind that People magazine claimed only four days later that Levi had been parenting Tripp for "weeks," and see if you find the omission as odd as I do. Was he ever actually in Wasilla? On the very day that Sherry Johnston is telling People Levi is cheerfully changing diapers at the Palin home, he's actually on the North Slope quitting his job. Hmmmmm........ It's my opinion that, in fact, the Anchorage Daily News article and the People Magazine article contradict each other directly. And if Ms. Johnston lied about Levi being home, did she lie about seeing the baby? It's a valid question. (She might have good reasons for doing as she's asked. Just sayin'...)

And there's another reason to question what the truth is here: A single comment left by Mercede Johnston, aunt of the alleged newborn, on a MySpace page belonging to a former Wasilla resident, Mellissa Wilfong. Mercede has posted to Ms. Wilfong's page on January 4th, telling Ms. Wilfong that she planned on visiting Florida later this winter (and, interestingly, did not mention her new nephew at all.) But then, on January 7th, we get another comment. As Ms. Wilfong's page is now set to private, it can not be viewed directly, but here is a screen shot.

Courtesy of Gawker, here is a translation:

Levi is in a bit of a haze right now... Umm, I'm not allowed to see my nephew and my mom isn't either. We aren't Palins so therefore we are white trash and Bristol doesn't want her baby around us. So mom and I are really upset over it. I just hope Levi pulls his head out of his butt and lets us see our nephew and her grandbaby.

What to make of this comment? First, is it real? We know it came from Mercede Johnston's real MySpace account. Second, is it TRUE? It's impossible to say. Most of the Wasilla teen's MySpace pages went private after Sarah Palin's nomination in September; it's possible that Mellissa Wilfong, an older person and outside of the Wasilla group never got the memo, and hers remained public; Mercede may have not realized this. Certainly, the comment has received a good deal of publicity and no one has issued a statement that it is a forgery or a fraud: it's just been ignored.

So what does it mean? Are we to assume that Mercede and Sherry have NEVER seen the baby, which would mean that Sherry lied to People Magazine OR does it mean just that they can't see the baby in an ongoing way? No one... typically... is talking.

What's the answer? I honestly don't know. What I do know is that this family has again provided a situation that simply does not make sense.

Tripp Johnston is the best proof that Sarah Palin has that she is Trig Palin's mother. Yes, other women could have been Trig's mother, but Bristol for many reasons was the most plausible alternative. The rumors and questions about Trig Palin's birth have not gone away. Recently, Gov. Palin and the Anchorage Daily News carried on a rather public email war in which the editor of the ADN stated that while he believes Sarah to be Trig's mom, he also stated explicitly that:

It strikes me that if there is never a clear, contemporaneous public record of what transpired with Trig's birth that may actually ensure that the conspiracy theory never dies.

A good place to start - a very good place - would be with a clear, contemporaneous public record of Tripp Johnston's birth. But it doesn't look like we are going to get that either.

Some New Photos to Discuss - Part Two

2009-01-24T15:39:00.000-08:00

I have a few more new photos I would like to share, with some analysis.

The first two photos are from March 22nd, three weeks and six days prior to Trig Palin's announced birth date.

This first picture was taken of Gov. Palin at the Alaska Governor's Prayer Breakfast on March 22nd, in Anchorage. The first thing that struck me when I saw this picture is that she looked quite rounded and definitely pregnant.

Now this picture was taken - I believe - the same day, March 22nd, at the Alaska Girls' High School Basketball tournament. However, the tournament had begun on a previous day, so it is also possible that it was taken on the 20th or 21st.

And both of these pictures were taken four days BEFORE this picture, which has been seen widely, and I first discussed in this post in December.

To my eye, it's hard to explain the differences between picture one of this series (taken on 3/22) and picture three (taken 3/26 - FOUR days later) with any known physiology of pregnancy. Jokes aside, there are no "low amniotic fluid days," and every pregnancy I've ever seen (and I've seen hundreds) gets BIGGER as the days pass, not smaller. Is it possible that at the prayer breakfast, an event Gov. Palin knew would be attended by hundreds of women (many of them mothers themselves, and far more tuned in to signs of pregnancy) she took more care to "appear" pregnant; at the Juneau Museum, doing a quick bill signing with mostly high school students, she was careless?

Here's an interesting find. On Saturday, March 29th, at the Governor's Mansion in Juneau, Gov. Palin hosted a luncheon for the spouses of the Alaska state legislators. At this luncheon, Gov. Palin signed a bill authorizing a special session, to begin in June. Here's a photo of her taken that day. This photo does not have the clarity of many of the photos I have published because we do not have an original photo; what this is is a screen shot of a pdf newsletter.

Here's a news clip showing the same day.

In general, I try to be charitable. However, I have to say that, out of the panorama of Palin's maternity "wardrobe," this is the worst. She's wearing a trench coat. Inside. In her own home. At a luncheon at which she is the hostess, and most everyone else appears to be dressed rather nicely. Does this not strike everyone as odd?

The second interesting thing is that Gov. Palin is photographed here with Willow Olson, the wife of Donald Olson, who is interestingly, also pregnant. Mrs. Olson is due in mid-July (and gave birth to her second child, a son, on July 20th). Two full months after Gov. Palin's announced due date, and three months after 6 lb 2 oz Trig Palin's announced birth. Who looks more pregnant?

Here's a screen shot from the news video, taken as she bent over to sign the bill.

Trig Palin was born twenty days later.

Here's one other shot I'd like to add. In general, I have hesitated to do any photo "manipulation" beyond lightening and darkening images. However, the image of Gov. Palin with Ms. Young shows a lot, in spite of the fact that it's not very high quality. If you look carefully, you can distinguish between her black top and her black scarf. One of my helpers went in and very carefully outlined what I believe to be the scarf, then simply changed the scarf area to another color - in this case an off white. Not very sophisticated or fancy, but something anyone could try. Here it is:

Once you isolate the scarf from the shirt, it's easy to see that the line of the scarf against her body is almost straight. For those of you who are curious about the small bulge on the far side of the coat, I believe that Gov. Palin has her left hand in her pocket, but this is just a guess.

Draw your own conclusions, but mine is that this is not a woman who gave birth to a six plus pound baby twenty days later. This is also not a woman who turned into this:

in sixteen days.

A note from the moderator

2009-01-22T08:31:00.001-08:00

I originally covered these points in the comments section, but just so they won't get lost in the ongoing flood of input I thought I'd repeat there here, with Audrey's permission.

Some of you have noticed that all the comments made by "BluTx" - a Palin cheerleader - have been replaced by the text "removed by author." A number of you have inquired as to where they went, and one reader even went so far as to email me and ask whether Audrey or I had scrubbed the site of BlueTx's comments. To her credit, this reader did offer an apology in advance if she'd made the assumption in error.

The following is my reply:

Your apology is accepted, as you are in error.

We did not remove the comments. When we switched over to requiring everyone to have a Google ID, the one drawback was that any author could go in and remove their comments if they wanted. Some people even pointed that out and worried that someone could - essentially - take their ball and go home in the middle of a debate by removing their side of the argument.

But it was a risk we took due to a string of anonymous comments that we were so numerous and confusing (it's hard to know who you're talking to when they won't sign their name) after getting repeated calls from readers to do something.

Neither Audrey nor I removed BluTx's comments. "Removed by author" means just that, and I don't know or care why BlueTx chose to do what he/she did. I did post a moderation message this morning noting that BlueTx has indeed removed her comments, but noted that we would not be discussing the decision on the blog since our focus is Sarah Palin and not other commenters.

There are constant and consistent efforts to derail the focus of this blog - through either wildly off-topic comments, red-herring issues, submission of topics we've already deemed off-limits, and - in this case it appears - a manufactured issue.

It's our policy to keep the blog conversation running smoothly, which means reading each comment individually, checking links and making sure overly redundant or prohibited material does not get through.

As I've pointed out before, our decisions aren't going to make everyone happy, but that's not the primary goal so we don't try. The primary goal is to run a thoughtful blog that explores the mystery of Sarah Palin's fifth pregnancy in a concise, intelligent way. I believe we are doing that, which is why our readership continues to flourish and also while we continue to attract and keep intelligent, civil commentators.

Thanks again for your suggestions and support. I hope I've addressed your concerns adequately.

Some people here have been asking about how many hits Audrey gets and how many are from Wasilla, etc.

Not to speak in her stead, but knowing her personally I can tell you it's not Audrey's style to crow about how much traffic this site gets. I can only tell you that the Feedjit stats are there for everyone to see at the bottom of the page.

We don't really keep up with what's coming in from where, as Audrey and Co. are too busy compiling information and moderating the blog to watch the stats.

Also, some of you have sent in links via the comments section to sites that either have either sketchy/libelous/clearly unvetted information on SP or that offer her home address and personal contact info. It's against our blog policy to associate ourselves with such sites, even through approval of comments that link to them.

The more salacious, personal stuff can obviously be found online if you wish to seek it out, but we prefer not to direct people to it ourselves.

Again, thanks for your understanding.

Morgan

Some New Photos to Discuss - Part One

2009-01-21T07:08:00.000-08:00

Through the last weeks and months, numerous photos have come to my attention that have not been published here on the blog or on the website. One reason I have chosen not to focus on them is that often I feel the photos are inconclusive precisely because of the way Gov. Palin chose to dress during late February, March, and April 2008. But there have been enough questions about some of them that I felt it was time to publish them, and tell what we know about them.

Gov. Palin has made conflicting statements concerning just how pregnant she ever looked. At one point, she stated explicitly that she never needed to do much to hide her pregnancy because she never showed much. However, elsewhere she made the statement that she DID hide her pregnancy, through "fashion-assisted camouflage," beginning as far back as the Vogue shoot in mid December 2007, when, according to the dates she released, she would have been around eighteen weeks pregnant (a very normal time for a fifth pregnancy to begin showing.) But careful analysis of her mode of dressing from December 2007 until February 2008 (Christmas events 2007, State of the State 2008 and other events) in fact shows NO attempt to disguse anything until approximately mid February, when Gov. Palin began dressing in jackets and scarves, and often wearing what were obviously winter coats indoors.

Gov. Palin announced her pregnancy on March 5th. Curiously enough, however, her "dress to disguise" did not cease. In fact, in general it increased, became more pronounced and in some cases almost bizarre. We have photos of her (they will be in part 2 of this post) at one event (a formal lunch for the spouses of the Alaska state legislators) AT THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION in which she is wearing a trench coat which looks like something someone could have picked up at the Salvation Army paired with a scarf that literally falls to her knees.

No sharp, stylish professional maternity clothes for Gov. Palin, which is sad considering how nice and attractive some of the designer maternity outfits are now and how really good she would have looked in them. (Quite a change from the eighties when I was pregnant and maternity "fashion" consisted mostly of floppy bows of varying sizes paired with checkered tops. As if, oh yeah, that'll hide her belly.) No, during HER pregnancy, our fashion-conscious governor favored mannish black jackets, trench coats, frowsy scarves, and winter coats worn indoors (several of which can be spotted in photos from other years fitting remarkably the same when she was "pregnant" as when she wasn't.)

Here, then is a gallery of photos that have not been widely seen before.

This first item is interesting. The event was an awards banquet for the Alaska Outdoor Council. Dating these photos was tough, because the organization's own newsletter says they were taken March 8th, 2008. Here's a screen shot of the page of the newsletter.

If that date was accurate, she would have been around 30 weeks pregnant. Further research however, has convinced me that the organization's own newsletter is wrong - and that actual date was February 9th. While not quite as dramatic a find as if this photo had been from March, Sarah Palin would still have been twenty six weeks pregnant with her fifth child here. We tracked this correct date down through this news article, from the Alaska Journal of Commerce, which contains an additonal photo.

Here's an internet picture of a woman at twenty six weeks just for reference. I posted the skinniest one I could find.

Hmmm. That's all I can say.

The next photo has been seen several places. Here it is:

This picture is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it was one of the first (perhaps the first) taken of Gov. Palin after she announced that she WAS pregnant on March 5th, 2008. It was taken in conjunction with an event, in Fairbanks, called Fur and Ice, on March 8th, 2008. This appears to be a reception of some sort, held in honor of "the diplomatic corps." Here's another picture from the state of Alaska website.

Another reason that we are very interested in this picture is it allows us to date a blog post made by blogger Elizabeth Eubanks. Her blog entry, dated April 26th, but clearly referring to photos and events that happened earlier, is one of the "proofs" of Sarah Palin's pregnancy. The thinking goes like this: A random out of state person saw Gov. Palin at the airport and said she was pregnant. She would have no reason to lie. Therefore, Gov. Palin must have appeared pregnant. Here's a photo someone at the airport snapped of Gov. Palin, with Ms. Eubanks and Piper Palin.

It's clear that Gov. Palin and Piper are wearing the same outfits that they were wearing in the other Fur and Ice photos. Given that, plus the fact that Eubanks says she saw them in the Fairbanks airport, and it's a reasonable assumption that the photo of Eubanks, Palin, and Piper Palin was taken on March 8th.

It's been suggested various places that Elizabeth Eubanks was "paid off" to say that Gov. Palin looked pregnant. I'd like to suggest a far less cynical or dire explanation: she was in Alaska precisely when the pregnancy was announced. It was on TV and in the papers. No doubt, she heard about it, may well have seen it discussed on TV within the 24 hours prior to her leaving Alaska, and when she saw Gov. Palin it was the first thing she thought of. Based on Palin's appearance at the other "Fur and Ice" picture, in which she looks completely unpregnant, it's hard to imagine any great change in belly size between then and the airport that evening. So, my conclusion is: Elizabeth Eubank's oft-repeated statement "Of course I had to check out the “Hottest Governor in the US” and quickly turned to see her pregnant (she has since had her baby) with bags and daughter in tote." is nothing more that her repeating what she had just heard on TV, and had nothing to do with Palin's actual appearance that day.

For further discussion, I'd like to offer this picture, taken just last December less than a month ago, from the state of Alaska website.

The fit of the jacket, in my opionion, is identical from last March (at roughly 30 weeks of pregnancy) and this December (at 0 weeks of pregnancy.) (We hope.)

The last photo in this group is a picture taken on March 11, 2008 in conjunction with a youth summit of some sort. I am still trying to learn exactly what this group is. Here's a photo of Gov. Palin from that day.

Sarah Palin was less than five weeks away from delivering a six plus pound baby in this photo. In spite of not being able to see clearly due to her ubiquitous jacket, I sure don't see a 6-7 months pregnancy here. In addtion, this photo illustrates what I was mentioning above: her almost bizarre penchant for wearing winter coats indoors. The incongruity is made even more clear in this series of photos since many of the young people are wearing short sleeves. One young lady, not in this photo but shown at the event in other photos, is wearing a sleevless top.

More pictures tomorrow!

A Birth Certificate... what would it really show?

2009-01-14T11:04:00.001-08:00

Since the very beginning of this controversy, there have been calls for Trig Palin's birth certificate as something that would settle the matter. I have never joined this clamor, because I have known all along that it would not be conclusive. However, there is a curious irony here which has occurred to me only recently: while releasing the birth certificate would potentially prove nothing, NOT releasing it may be telling us a great deal.

What leads to this seemingly illogical statement? In short, how birth certificates are handled in the face of an adoption. I have researched this with the help of an associate who has interviewed an Alaskan attorney who handles adoptions. The path to adoption - and the paperwork involved - is as follows. This outlines what would happen in the case of a closed, private adoption, with the parents and birth mother knowing each other prior to the birth, and making some of the arrangements before the baby is born.

1. A baby is born. An attendant at the birth (can be any facility staff person, not necessarily the doctor) files a “Report of Live Birth.” The birth mom fills out the form with her name and the name of the father. Other info includes the name of the facility and the name of the doctor, if there is one. This document is confidential. In the case of a subsequent adoption, only parties to the adoption ever see this, like the parents (birth and adoptive) and their attorneys. This report is saved for 100 years but it is impossible to get because it is confidential. The adoptive parents would take the baby home from the hospital.

2. There is a hearing within a week or two. This proceeding is confidential.

3. A decree of adoption is issued. Once again, this is a confidential document.

4. A birth certificate with the child’s new name and adoptive parents’ names is issued by the state. You cannot tell by looking at that birth certificate that the child has been adopted so even if it is released, it would be of little value. The birth certificate contains ONLY the following information: the child's (new) name, the adoptive parents' names, the date, and place (city and state) of his birth. Here's an example of an "heirloom" birth certificate you can order for an Alaska birth. It's more decorative than a regular one, but contains all the same info.

Different people born at different times in different places may have other information on their birth certificates. When I was born (long long ago and far far away) the state in which I was born seems to have combined the "birth certificate" and the "report of live birth." My birth certificate contains not only my parents' names, my name, time, place, and date, of course, but the hospital of my birth, my parents' marital status, the number of my mother's previous pregnancies, and the attending doctor's signature as well.

Since the beginning of my investigation into this I have assumed that, if Trig is not Sarah and Todd Palin's biological child, by the time of the campaign, he would have already been long since legally adopted. Therefore, releasing his birth certificate would prove nothing, since it would list his adoptive parents' name, his name, the date, and place of his birth. It would be tell us nothing.

But then I started thinking about this recently. OK, maybe that's true, but then.... why NOT release it? It might not be proof positive for those of us who understand the adoption procedure, but it would have still given the Palins political points. "Look, [eyes rolling] we released the damn birth certificate. They asked for it..." [and many did] "... and we gave it to them. What more can these loonies want?" And those who might have tried to explain about the nuance of adoption law would, at least to many, appear as if they were again splitting hairs. I'll say it again... the Palins could have gotten a fair amount of mileage out of releasing it.

But they didn't. After numerous calls from multiple sources for many months, they still have not. Why not, when they should have had nothing to lose, and potentially at least something to gain? When the document should contain nothing but the names of Sarah and Todd Palin, and the information that Trig was born on April 18th, 2008 in Palmer, Alaska?

Well, here's one answer. Here's why my original statement was that, while releasing it would not have proved anything conclusively, NOT releasing it may be telling us a lot.

What changes when the child is adopted, from the "Report of Live Birth," to the "Birth Certificate?" The baby's name and the parents' names. That's all. What does not change, CANNOT change? The date and place of the birth.

If the child that we now know as Trig Paxson Van Palin was NOT born in Palmer Alaska on April 18th, 2008, his birth certificate would show us that, no matter who the parents are. Could this be the reason no birth certificate has ever been released? Not because they won't, but because they can't?

KTVA Video Report

2009-01-13T05:54:00.000-08:00

Last night, at 10 PM Alaska time, KTVA (CBS Affiliate in Anchorage) ran a two plus minute video segment discussing the photos that have been posted on the blog several times, notably here and here.

Here's the link to the segment. This segment contains a short video clip of the actual interview between Gov. Palin and Andrea Gusty on April 13th, 2008, as well as Andrea Gusty's unequivocal statement that both the photograph of her interviewing Gov. Palin and the photograph of Gov. Palin with Bill McAllister and Dan Carpenter were taken with her camera. According to Gusty, Carpenter took the photograph of the interview; she took the photo of Carpenter and McAllister.

Prior to the newscast, at this same link (at approximately 10 PM Eastern Time), a full eight minute unedited version of the actual newscast that had run that night was posted (with no comment whatsoever), including "weekend weather." (Clarification: The eight minute segment appears to have been around 9:30 PM Eastern (5:30 PM AK time) and remained up until some time after the ten p.m. newscast, when it was replaced by the report that Gusty actually did last night.) This contained a much longer version of the interview with Palin. I was unable to capture this prior to it being removed, and I regret this. If anyone reading this blog has it available, please contact me.

I did not post anything on this blog prior to the segment running, as we were unable to confirm until almost ten p.m Eastern that the segment was scheduled. The majority of the discussion in Gusty's report focused on another website; mine was only shown in a very brief flash, and I was never contacted for any comment, or for the credentials or identity of the individual who had done the Photoshop analysis for me. In an odd twist of events... someone, and we are still trying to determine who, emailed a large number of people who had at some point posted their email address in comments to my blog (for whatever reason) that the segment was going to run, yet I was never emailed.

Further comment on this development will be available later today.

A

New Post coming soon, but for now..

2009-01-12T11:48:00.000-08:00

... a word from our sponsor.

No, just joking, there is no sponsor.

But I do need to announce a change of policy, beginning immediately . Perhaps many of you have been noticing that there has not been a new blog post for some days. You are probably wondering why that is. The short answer is that I have been so overwhelmed with the popularity of this blog - as illustrated by our comments - that two of us, working almost full time, are having a hard time keeping up.

We check every link that is posted. That means the comments that say, "Have you seen these pictures?" are all checked. My most recent post now has in excess of 400 comments. We have rejected hundreds more. Spammers, counting on our exhaustion, are promising great new links of never before seen pictures, and it's true that the pictures have NOT been seen on my site before, but that's because they are of "teenaged barnyard sex" or "hot new Russian brides." Other people - mostly new to the blog - continue to post links to things that have been up on the site (and discussed on the blog) for months. None of you want to know HOW MANY links we still get to the damn Bristol "baby bump" photos. But because they come in with: "Have you seen this?" and a link, we have to check it!

So for this reason, we have turned off the option of anonymous commenting. You now must have a google ID to comment on this blog. They are easy to get and free. We hope that the intelligent discourse that so many appreciate about this blog will continue, yet this policy will slow down the absolute mountain of anonymous comments that are really starting to get in the way of what we are about here.

Thanks... but no Thanks!

2009-01-08T08:12:00.000-08:00

I am posting this in response for the increasing calls that I accept money (mostly via Paypal donations) for the work I am doing on the blog, and also so a P.I. can be hired to go to Alaska and investigate the story.

I am very fortunate to be at a position in my life where I can afford to take on a project like this on my own dime. I originally became interested in this story, not because of any feelings or doubts about Sarah Palin per se ... I had never even heard of her... but because as a childbirth educator and a natural childbirth advocate, I have been disgusted and frustrated through the years over the constant and chronic misreporting of childbirth and childbirth related stories in the main stream media. My original interest in Sarah Palin was very "one dimensional;" I assumed that some moron of a male reporter had gotten that birth story wrong, since, of course, it could not have really happened that way. It was only a bit later -when I came to understand that that was in fact "her story and she was sticking to it," that I started digging deeper, leading to... today.

But I digress.

As I said, I am in a financial position that I can put my time and energy into this, and I am choosing to do so. I believe that by not taking any money at all for anything, I keep things "cleaner," and this is how I will continue to operate.

Just as an aside, on the question of a private investigator: Obviously, hiring such an individual would be an enormously expensive task. I think all would agree that a local "man" could not be used, since, while I am sure anyone who was asked would protest that they were "fair, balanced, and unbiased," anyone from the local area could potentially have strong feelings about Gov. Palin (either pro OR con). Even if the person WAS completely unbiased, no one would ever believe that, and I think results would basically be worthless to the public at large.

This would leave bringing someone in from the outside, an impressively expensive task, considering a plane ticket from anywhere in the "Lower 48" (without, say, a two week advance purchase) would run at least $1000.00... and that's just to start. Then there would be the car rental, the daily rate, the hotel. Such a venture could easily top $10,000... and frankly, I doubt it would have much effect.

I have never mentioned this on the blog before, but I know of a rather prominent and well-funded free lance journalist who, in September, did exactly what we are proposing... flew to Wasilla on his own dime. He poked around for days... going to the hospital... trying to get people to talk to him. He tried to interview anyone from the Johnston family - no luck. He was unsuccessful in getting a single person who was willing to go on the record to say either that they knew Trig WAS Sarah's OR that they knew he was NOT.

After five days, he went home, though his final comment on the experience to me has always stuck with me. What troubled him the most was "how afraid everyone is of her."

So... to repeat... while I appreciate more than anyone can know the level of concern that people have shown (and the many kind letters of thanks I have received) I have made the decision not to accept financial backing of any sort for continuing to do this. Furthermore, many people have mentioned a "book deal" to me. This is the farthest thing from my mind, and not a goal at all, though I am enough of a realist to know that - depending on the outcome here - it's not an impossibility.

So I am making this statement here, now, publicly. Should that ever happen, any revenue I receive from any book will be used as follows: First, I have several "volunteers" who have helped my in my research enormously. Some of their names you know... others have stayed behind the scenes. I would use some of the revenue to provide a benefit to them as my way of saying thank you; a cruise or vacation of some sort for the whole group. However, any additional revenue beyond this will be donated to an apolitical cause that would have relevance to this issue: support for rape victims in Alaska, perhaps, or research on Down's Syndrome.

Audrey

Good Questions, Clear Answers

2009-01-05T16:59:00.000-08:00

In response to my last post, this succinct comment came in. I thought I would post the answers briefly, since they are very important. Here's the comment:

Could somebody point me to an explanation of how the 4/13/08 photograph came to be verified as legitimate and not some home PhotoShopper monkeying around with SP's head, some pregnant woman's body, etc.?

Has Sarah Palin ever said it was a photograph of her?

Has the reporter with the microphone and/or the cameraman said it's legitimate?

1. The photo of Gusty allegedly interviewing Palin has never been verified as legitimate. It was released on August 31st, after the controversy of Palin's not being Trig's mom swept the Internet, to an anonymous Flickr account. Neither the photographer nor the account owner (Eric95599) has ever identified themselves, answered how or why it was released on 8/31, or answered legitimate queries as to why - since there was controversy in Alaska since April concerning Trig's birth - it was not released prior to 8/31.

2. Sarah Palin has never commented on that photo. However, the McCain campaign (in conversations with Andrew Sullivan at Atlantic.com) has acknowledged the photo as one of the few in which Palin appears pregnant. I think it's fair to say they certainly implied that it is Palin and that it is legit.

3. Andrea Gusty told factcheck.org that the picture was legitimate. (According to factcheck.org, she also provided them with a higher resolution version of the photo, though factcheck.org has never released it; the version on their website is actually LOWER resolution than the one on Flickr.) She also told one of my research assistants that the photo was taken on April 13th and that is how Palin looked on that day. However, Gusty also said (to factcheck.org) she had no idea how the photo was released to the Internet because she thought she was the only one who had it and she has not answered my multiple emails asking for clarification on the photo. We have so far failed to identify the cameraman conclusively.

It should perhaps be stated here - since I do not believe I have mentioned it before - that there have been persistent rumors that another version of this photo was seen on the internet early in September in which Palin did not look this pregnant, that the photo was at that point "inconclusive." I cannot find any legitimate source for this. No one that I consider credible has ever written to me and stated that they saw the photo, told me where or when, and certainly no other version of the photo appears to be in existence. I have worked with numerous people since I began researching this topic who jumped into the issue very early on and downloaded and archived absolutely everything they found. It is only due to very alert bloggers and researchers that we have, for example, full screen shots of Mercedes Johnston's Myspace pages. If another version of the photo existed, I believe someone would have grabbed it and no one did. Because of this, I do not believe that another version of this photo was circulating early in September.

Photo Discussion Thread

2009-01-05T14:02:00.000-08:00

Much about this story has inevitably slowed down. Trig Palin is now more than eight months old and the birth of Bristol Palin's child was announced a week ago (with the birth itself allegedly occurring ten days ago.) This is, in most standard ways, not an "on-going" news story, though of course we are still trying to obtain some (any!) independent verification that Tripp Palin was actuallly born. Because of that, it's just not possible to post new information every day.

There remains a high level of ongoing interest, however, in the two famous photographs which show Gov. Sarah Palin looking expectant, allegedly taken on 4/13 and released on 8/31. So much so that at times analysis of these photos is overwhelming comments on other threads, and people are continuing to post photo commentary to newer threads that have nothing to do with the photos. I have received some complaints that the photo analysis is just to technical for a lot of the readers. They are not disputing it, mind you, but some readers just don't grasp it and don't want to. They feel when something conclusive comes in, I'll explain it to everyone... and that's where they want to leave it.

So... I've started this new thread here. Obviously, if I make any new posts specifically on the photos, people can comment on that thread, but until I do, we are asking all readers to post any comments releated to the 4/13 photos to this thread. I'll put a link to this thread in the side bar, so it will easy to get back to. I am considering opening a second blog... just for analysis and discussion of photos, since interest seems so high, but that is a few days off.

Due to the many many interesting comments that have come in on the photos I am having further expert analysis done, looking at, among other things, the vanishing point issues as well as the issues of sizes of the people relative to one another. I am hopeful that some additional information will come to light. I'll keep everyone posted.

A

Yes, Bristol Palin is 18...

2009-01-01T17:45:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witness for the Prosecution

2009-01-01T13:36:00.000-08:00

In 1933, Agatha Christie published a short story entitled "Witness for the Prosecution." In this story, briefly, a husband who is accused of murdering an old woman whom he had befriended (and who had made him her beneficiary) is exonerated by evidence obtained from the man's wife. The wife, claiming to hate her husband, had been a witness for the prosecution, but the defense attorney was provided with evidence that proved the wife to be a liar. The evidence, of the wife's scandalous affair, only peripherally touched on the husband. When she was confronted in court, she confessed that she had lied. It is only later that the defense attorney comes to understand that he has been duped, and the evidence was false. The wife explains: Information that "proved" her husband's innocence, given willingly by a loving wife, would have counted for nothing. The same evidence, wrested from her by force, got him acquitted.

While there are obviously many differences between this story and what we have seen happen in Alaska over the past five days, there are some striking similarities.

Last night, the Governor's press office released the following statement: December 31, 2008, Anchorage, Alaska – Governor Sarah Palin has welcomed her first grandchild, Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, born to Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston on December 27.

(Follow the link to see the rest of the statement.)

Consider this scenario. On Sunday morning, December 28th, the Governor's office releases the following statement: "Yesterday, December 27th, the Governor's daughter welcomed her baby, Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston. We won't tell you where he was born, or who his doctor is. We won't tell you where Bristol is. We also will not release any pictures. Have a nice day."

Something tells me that would have gone over like a lead balloon. But... this is exactly what we have. Release my faux statement and the press would be screaming. But release essentially the same thing, after days of coy denial and yesterday's bizarre digression into discussing Levi and Bristol's educational status, and no one really notices that there is no verification at all. Wrest the information that the baby has been born from them reluctantly and the public will believe what they would never have accepted if it had been offered willingly.

Bristol Palin's pregnancy was not a private family matter. It was announced on September 1, 2008 by the McCain campaign with - I assume - the agreement of her parents for one reason: to "prove" that she could not be Trig Palin's mother and, by extension, "prove" that Sarah Palin was. For this reason, the birth is not a private family matter. The American people are owed concrete verification that it actually occurred, through either a joint press statement from the attending doctor or midwife accompanied by an administrator at the birth facility, or a birth certificate, and a current photograph of a non-pregnant Bristol with a newborn. No one is asking for explicit birth videos or photographs of Bristol struggling to breastfeed.

But to refuse to provide a single item of verification that this event occurred, and then hide behind the sanctimonious reasoning that it's private, is nonsense and Sarah Palin needs to be called on it.

Oh, and back to Witness for the Prosecution? At the very end of the story, the defense attorney, having discovered the wife's duplicity, protests his hurt to her: How could she have so little faith in him? He was sure he could have won the acquittal of an innocent man. She quickly makes clear her real motivation: She could not depend on that because ... she knew he was guilty.

Farce

2008-12-31T17:49:00.000-08:00

It's official. A threshold has been reached.

For months I have been researching the story of Sarah Palin's alleged pregnancy last spring. At times, I've been serious, at other times facetious, at others sarcastic. But on some level, I always thought this was a serious story.

No more. Today, as I searched for a word to best describe where we are now, my husband suggested surreal. And that's a good word, no denying it.

We are now 48 hours after the news broke on People.com that Triggy Trippin' Track (or whatever the hell his name is) had been born. The birth day and the birth weight have each already changed once, but I think we've finally settled on Saturday, December 27th, and 7 lbs 8 oz. No matter that ... depending on how you count it... either two days or five days in, not one Alaskan newspaper has confirmed the story. Not one Wasilla/Palmer/Anchorage hospital has confirmed the child was actually born there. We have not seen a single photo, even a quick smile and wave from the proud new mom as she carries her little bundle o' joy out of the hospital. And most incredibly of all, the Governor's office has "refused to comment," saying that it is only a private family matter.

Read that again. Sarah Palin's office - five days after the putative birth - has not yet actually confirmed that the child has been born.

So.. how is it again... that we know this then? Let's review: It turns out that the alleged baby has an alleged great-aunt (who doesn't even live in Alaska, but hey, minor details) who got an alleged email from the alleged grandpa and then somehow (this is totally unclear) talked to People.com. (So how was it, just out of idle curiousity, that alleged great-aunty got Saturday and Sunday mixed up? Was the initial email from Chuck "Sarah's Water Broke" Heath wrong? Mistaken? Oh never mind. There's no point in even asking.) Great-aunty has actually admitted that she hasn't really TALKED to anyone in the family, but again... minor details.

But then, today, just when I thought surely it could not get any worse, it does. People is now reporting that Gov. Palin called them today... and left a message. Hmmm.

And on that message was the earth-shattering info that: Levi and Bristol are not really high school dropouts. Gov. Palin wanted everyone to know that. She wanted it to be abundantly crystal clear. She even says it right out. "They are certainly not high school drop outs." Hmmm.

Because later in the same article we are told that: Levi, also 18, told the AP in October that he had "left high school" to enroll in an apprenticeship program training him as an electrician. (I don't know what YOUR definition of high school dropout is, but that's pretty much mine.)

And her reason for imparting this pearl? To protect the young folks' reputations. Of course, considering that we are talking about a young woman who supposedly just had a baby (possibly her second) at age eighteen and a young man whose mother just got arrested for drug charges, the word "reputation" probably needs to be applied a bit loosely. If at all.

Oh, and what does she tell us about her darling newborn grandson? Umm, let me check the article again. Ummm. Nothing. Nada. Zippo. Squat. Nothing about how cute and chubby and perfect he is. Nothing about how he smells so sweet that his grandmother just can't put him down. Nothing about how cute he looks in his little sleepers or darling hats. But... Levi's going to be an electrician. Yeah, that's important.

She does reassure us that "Levi and Bristol are working their butts off to parent," an odd statement at best considering that the new (alleged) rugrat is barely five days old, and, pardon me for pointing this out, but many of us believe that Bristol has been parenting Trig for, oh, eight months now.

Which brings me to the conversation I had with my husband on the word that could best be used to describe this absolutely unbelievable morass. His suggestion was, as I said, surreal. And it surely is. But I felt somehow I could do better. Somewhere, there was the perfect word. And then, it came to me.

Farce.

For those of you who many not remember high school English, I'll give you a refresher on the definition of farce.

A light dramatic work in which highly improbable plot situations, exaggerated characters, and often slapstick elements are used for humorous effect.

Or perhaps you might like this one better.

A low style of comedy; a dramatic composition marked by low humor, generally written with little regard to regularity or method, and abounding with ludicrous incidents and expressions.

Yup. Farce.

The Blessed Event

2008-12-30T08:23:00.000-08:00

So it's official. Or is it?

People Magazine announced Monday evening that Bristol Palin gave birth Sunday to a 7 lbs. 7 oz. baby boy named Tripp. The source of the news? Not the parents themselves or the proud grandparents. People said the birth was confirmed by Bristol's great aunt, Colleen Jones, the sister of Bristol's Grandma Sally Heath..

Curiously, People has since revised its online article to say the birth took place on Saturday. Hmm. The birth date provided by the NY Daily News is even sketchier. Their report simply says the baby was born "over the weekend." The NY Daily News gives a different birth weight, too. They put the little bundle of joy at 7 lbs. 4 oz.

Really, people, how hard is it to get it right?

But at least the print media is trying. Well, some of them.

While the NY Daily News actually had a staff writer do their story, the Alaskan newspaper of record, the Anchorage Daily News, apparently didn't think the story was even worthy of a byline, so they just ran a blurb announcing the birth and cited their source as People Magazine. To their credit, however, they did note that an attempt to get a statement from the governor was unsuccessful this time, while noting she issued a press release in April after Trig was born.

Over at Fox News, they announced the birth via an AP report that includes a most curious error at the end:

Sarah Palin and her husband Todd have five children ranging in age from son Trig, 7 months, to son Track, 19.

Wasn't Trig born on April 18th? If he was that'd put him at eight and a half months of age, not seven.

What about family reaction? The birth of a baby is a beautiful thing, right? It's hard for parents, grandparents and great grandparents not to brag.

But as ADN pointed out, there's no word from Sarah Palin other than a tersely worded statement from her press secretary, Bill McAllister, stating that the governor's office would not comment on this "private" matter.

If Sarah or her First Dude were there by their laboring daughter's bedside, they aren't saying so. For that matter, we don't know if Tripp's father Levi Johnston was there. The New York Daily News says it isn't clear whether he even attended the birth.

There's no comment from Levi Johnston's parents either, although in their defense the arrest of Levi's mother on drug charges may make any sort of public statement awkward. And what about Sarah's parents, the Heaths? It was Chuck Heath, after all, who told the world that Sarah's water had broken in Texas. It was Chuck Heath who gave Bristol's due date as Dec. 20th. Now, apparently, he's not saying a word and is referring all questions to the governor's office.

The only one who's talking is a great aunt, who gave two facts - birth date and birth weight - with neither being yet reported to any degree of certainty.

So where does this leave our investigation? As far as this blog is concerned, as long as questions remain we'll stick around to answer them. And this "birth" raises plenty.

Why was the birth announced on Monday, with conflicting dates and birth weights given and/or reported. Again, how hard is it to get this right?

No reports state where the baby was born. Usually when a celebrity or public figure gives birth, some hospital flack will issue a press release confirming the birth. So far, no hospital has identified itself as the birth place.

If the baby was born Saturday or Sunday as claimed, it certainly is convenient to announce it on Monday. With healthy babies and mothers discharged within 24 hours these days, Bristol & Son have had ample time to get home, or to some other undisclosed location.

There are no pictures and likely won't be until the family decides to release them. A lucrative deal with People has been reported, but if the family changes their mind we may never know.

It's hard to believe with all the attention the Palins are getting that photographers weren't stationed at every hospital in the area waiting to get a shot of Bristol either going in or coming out.

But again, nothing.

And finally, let's not forget one important point. Even if Bristol gave birth to Tripp on Saturday or Sunday - and that has yet to be verified via photos or official reports - it does not mean that Sarah gave birth to Trig.

Sarah Palin's wildly unbelievable birth story and photo evidence of what indicates a staged fifth pregnancy still leave ample room for speculation regarding a saga that only grows more twisted with time, especially with the latest chapters of a mysterious church fire, Sherry Johnston's arrest and now this vaguely detailed birth announcement.

So stay tuned. If you read the comments on this and other blogs it's abundantly clear that doubt persists. As long as it does, so shall this investigation.

Photoshop Report

2008-12-27T07:40:00.000-08:00

First, up front: I'll get this out of the way, so those who disagree with my decision can just stop reading now. I have agreed with the expert who did this report that I am not releasing his name publicly on this blog. He is fully aware that his name can and will be released to media personnel who make appropriate inquiries. He has a website which contains personal phone numbers as well as emails, and - based on what has occurred to others who have become involved in this story (which has included, in the case of at least one blogger who has posted on this publicly, emails to his employer demanding that he be fired) I have no problem agreeing with his request that he does not need to reveal himself to those who are simply malicious.

Second, I am making a commitment. If anyone disagrees with these results, he/she is free to hire another expert. I will be happy to post the results of another report on this blog, even if the results are sharply in disagreement with what the report that I was given.

Third, and I apologize for this, the report is in the form of a pdf. This is to protect the author of the report from having his work altered or plagiarised in any way. I realize it makes it a bit more difficult to read the report - you'll have to download it and open it on your own computer - but there's no way around this.

To review, I asked the expert to look at the following two photographs.

(Original caption from Flickr account: CBS 11 doing a live interview as the legislative session comes to an end. ) For the rest of this discussion, this is referred to as Image 1.

(Original caption from Flickr account: Myself, Governor Palin, Press Secretary McAllister. ) For the rest of this discussion, this is Image 2.

These photos were allegedly taken on April 13, 2008 in Juneau, less than one week prior to Trig Palin's birth.

Why is there so much focus on these photos? I think it's essential to review this briefly. Those who have supported Sarah Palin over the last four months, and who have insisted that there is "no doubt" that Sarah is Trig's mom in fact have very few pieces of "concrete proof." These two photos are two of only five known photos taken during the period of time during which she was said to have been pregnant (March 5, 2008 through April 18, 2008) in which there is an unobstructed view of her midsection. The other three are:

One, taken March 26th, which showed only very dubious evidence of pregnancy.
One, taken around April 8th, which shows a pregnant appearance. (However, I have asserted that the "belly," while certainly present, appears oddly flat, not "round and taut" as I would expect in a woman close to 35 weeks pregnant with her fifth child. In addition, screen shots from a video taken this same day show clear evidence of a square shape under her shirt.)
One, taken March 14th, which shows no evidence of pregnancy whatsoever.

These two photos - then - in my opinion - are the ONLY two which show her realistically pregnant. The belly is, in my opinion, rounded and quite natural-looking. And because of this, the photo of her being interviewed (Image 1) is pointed to again and again and again as proof-positive that she was pregnant with Trig. Just recently, on a website which supports Sarah Palin for president in 2012 (TeamSarah.org) there was a thread - now removed - which questioned the pregnancy. Like clockwork, someone posted this photo.

Frankly, without this ONE photo I personally believe that she would not have been able to "prove" the matter last August 31- September 1. This photo - along with the uncorroborated announcement that Bristol was "five months pregnant" - saved her candidacy. That's why this photo was - and continues to be - critical.

So ... without further ado, here's the link to the full pdf from the professional analysis. For those of you who want the result without having to wade through the analysis, here it is.

Image 1 (2814199887_67e84850f4_b.jpg) shows some signs of alterations consistent with an image that has been composited from different sources. However, due to the fact that the image available for analysis is only 1024 x 768, it is not possible to give a conclusive analysis.

Image 2 (2814979078_4815e908a9_b.jpg) shows no signs of alterations.

"Some signs of alterations." Admittedly, this is not proof positive. I concur that. But that the image shows any signs of alterations --- any signs at all --- should be very troubling considering that this is the single photograph that has been pointed to repeatedly as demonstrating that Sarah Palin is Trig's mom.

What are these signs of alterations? First, the area around her hair - a very common place to look for pixels that don't "match" in altered photos - shows signs of masking, a technique used when photos are composited. Second, as was pointed out in an earlier post on this blog, the area around her neck shows signs of adjustment - "a redundant pattern of murky pixels." Third, some discrepancy was noted in the area of the door that can be seen through her glasses, though if her glasses were clear and clean there should not have been a discrepancy. (However, to be precise, the expert felt that at 72 dpi, there was not enough detail say conclusively that this area had been altered: he calls it only an "area of interest.")

Fourth - and this was something that the expert brought up on his own (I had asked him only to look at the photos at the pixel level) in Image 1, Gov. Palin's body position seems, in his word, "peculiar." Many others have noted this. She is simply not facing where she should be if this picture is what it represents itself to be - a still shot of a news interview in progress. Even if, while Gusty was speaking, Palin's attention was drawn to something off camera and she glanced away, her body should still be facing the camera person squarely. But Palin's body is facing down the hall, quite nearly away from the cameraman, her expression almost unfocused. She does not appear in any way to be part of the action around her.

This report is not proof positive. It is not conclusive. But the main reason that is not is primarily because we do not have access to high-quality images from a known and reliable source from which solid conclusions can be drawn. What we have are low-resolution images taken by an unknown person uploaded anonymously to a Flickr account.

Considering all the other questions, concerns, and anomalies with this photo, that it shows any signs of alteration at all is profoundly troubling.

Here are just some of the questions surrounding the provenance of these photos ... and some comments on each.

1. This photo was released nowhere prior to Sarah Palin's candidacy being announced. While this is not per se a problem - lots of photos of Gov. Palin were no doubt released only after her VP nomination thrust her into the national spotlight - it is, in a word, unfortunate, that this most crucial picture was not seen anywhere prior to August 31, 2008.

2. The identity of the photographer is not known. Anyone who is willing to view these photos as "proof" should be at least slightly concerned that no one has ever been willing to publicly state who actually was behind the camera when the photos were taken.

3. The Flickr account holder is "Eric99559," and he/she has never been identified. In Image 2, the man to the left of the photo is Dan Carpenter, a photographer with KTUU - Channel 2 news (NBC Affiliate in Anchorage) , and the caption on the photo states that this person is "myself." This would lead one to assume that Eric99559 is Dan Carpenter. But this has never been confirmed.

4. The woman interviewing Gov. Palin in Image 1 is Andrea Gusty, a reporter with KTVA in Anchorage. She has gone on record as stating this photo was taken April 13th, a Sunday, which was the last day of the Alaska State Legislative Session. However, quite oddly, her account of the day (which is available for a fee on the KTVA website) is in conflict with the account published in the Anchorage Daily News the next day. Gusty's report states:

The halls are silent in our state Capitol after a bustling 90-day session wrapped up late Sunday night. More than 700 bills were introduced and less than half were voted on. Those that did make it are headed to the governor's desk for approval.

But according to the Anchorage Daily News, the session was adjourned "with time to spare," "at lunchtime," a fact that was met by considerable rejoicing from most legislators. This is not a minor difference, one person saying for example that it was over "at lunchtime," and another saying it was 1 PM. There is a huge difference between lunchtime and "late Sunday night." Was Gusty actually in Juneau on April 13th? If so, how could she confuse lunchtime and "late Sunday night?" Or was her written report uploaded to the KTVA website at a later time, and simply inserted with the date of April 14th into the sequence? Yet, archived video on the Anchorage Daily News site from KTVA on April 14th mentions that Gusty is in Juneau. I simply cannot understand how such an error could have been made.

5. Image 1 is a still photo of a news interview in progress. No actual video is now (or as far as I can tell after diligent research, ever has been) available.

6. The EXIF data on these two pictures, available openly on the Flickr account, show that these two photos were taken three minutes apart in 2005. Here is the EXIF data for Image 1. Here is the EXIF data for Image 2. Questions have been raised from the beginning about the incorrect date on these photos, with those skeptical of the idea that Palin may have faked the pregnancy insisting that the incorrect date is no big deal. The camera used was a mid range digital SLR. It cost around $700.00 when it was released, new, in 2005. Here's a page which is full of information about this camera. When it was released in 2005 it was a very nice, high end (9 megapixel) camera, a camera that would have been purchased by either a professional or a serious amateur. Here is what I have learned from conversations with two separate tech support people at Fuji:

There is no "default" date in this model camera (that the camera would reset to if the batteries died completely.) The first time the camera is turned on, the user must set a date. The camera will not work without this being done. After that point, the date is hard programmed into the hardware of the camera itself and even if the camera's battery dies completely is never lost. However, it can be changed by the user.

I find it extraordinarily odd that a professional grade camera used in what we are supposed to view as a professional interview environment has the wrong date, since there are only two ways this could happen with this particular camera. Either the date was set wrong when the camera was initially turned on OR the date was intentionally changed. Why would a professional photographer change the date in his camera - by many years?

7. These photos were intentionally downsized AFTER being uploaded to Flickr. Both images were uploaded as 3418 x 2616 images, then made smaller, to 1024 x 768. This is the procedure that was used. (It is very important to note that this is the procedure that MUST be used in order to maintain "original appearing" EXIF data.) (My thanks to Patrick and Kathleen for figuring this out.)

First, the picture was uploaded by Erik99559 to flickr in the ORIGINAL size, which was then recorded in the exif-data.

The original size, as recorded in the exif data, was:

Image Width: 3488 pixels
Image Height: 2616 pixels

THEN, the person who uploaded the picture went into the INTERNAL FLICKR EDITING PROGRAM and changed the size of the picture to 1024 x 768 pixels. He then saved the change and replaced this picture with the original flickr picture.

AS A RESULT, the picture was from then on viewable on flickr ONLY in 1024 x 768 or smaller file size.! The exif data doesn't change at all after you have done the procedure as described above.

You have to click in the end on

"save as new copy"

and NOT

"replace picture"

....because if you click "replace picture", it says in the flickr description that the picture "has been replaced", however, if you just save it as a "new copy" on flickr, then you get a new copy in the smaller size with the ORIGINAL exif data !!! (then you just have to delete your picture in the original size or make it private)

Why would someone do this? This is a FREE account - there is no expense involved in having larger resolution photographs up there. Someone had to follow a very specific set of steps to post pictures that had much smaller resolutions than the originals - but maintained "real" appearing exif data (except for the original size, which can't be altered.) So... why change the resolution so significantly AND then delete the original uploads? Is it because it is much much easier to spot alterations in higher resolution photographs?

8. It is at least worth remarking on the reference to Bill McAllister as Gov. Palin's press secretary. He was - as of mid August, 2008. But at the time the photo was taken, he was still employed by KTUU.

So, let's summarize.

This photograph is the single most often pointed to piece of evidence that Sarah Palin was "definitely" pregnant with Trig Palin in April. But upon examination, what we really have is this:

We have two photographs with incorrect dates, one of which shows signs of being composited, taken by an unknown photographer, uploaded by someone who has never come forward to an anonymous Flickr account after Sarah Palin's VP nomination. They were intentionally made smaller after they were uploaded and the originals either deleted or made private. The only person who has ever commented publicly on the photos, Andrea Gusty, has affirmed they were taken April 13th, but her published account of that day conflicts sharply with other news reports vis a vis what time the legislative session ended. No corroborating video of the photograph of the video shoot can be found.

And these are the only two photographs in which Sarah Palin appears unequivocally pregnant. These photographs have been looked at by millions and used countless times to argue that Sarah Palin was pregnant. My merely pointing out this almost endless list of problems with these photos gains my being termed a "moonbat," "wingnut," and/or many other names I would not even publish here. Would any court in the US accept photos with so many problems as any sort of evidence whatsoever for anything? I doubt it.

The fact that no one in the main stream media - with far more resources at their disposal than I have - has not looked at these photos more critically months ago is absolutely appalling.

Photoshop Report, Etc.

2008-12-26T20:07:00.000-08:00

The report from the Photoshop expert came in... finally... at around 5 PM tonight.

I apologize for the delay, and before I say anything else (so I am not accused of being an incredible tease) I will say upfront that I am not going to release it until tomorrow. Why?

The reason that the report was so delayed is that the expert and I (over Christmas Eve and Christmas, so not exactly the most opportune days) were exchanging numerous emails that dealt not with his conclusions per se but with confusing issues about how Flickr (the source of the photos) handles photo data. During the analysis of the photos, we discovered that the photos were edited on Flickr by the account holder after they were uploaded on August 31st. As the expert I was working with was not really at all familiar with Flickr, I needed to get some answers concerning just how Flickr handles photos and displays data on photos after they have been uploaded. This took some time.

The post that will accompany the release of the report is going to be long and detailed, and will discuss not only the contents of the report but will give a concrete summary of other questions and concerns surrounding these photos. It is important that this post be as complete and well-documented as possible, because these two photos were (prior to the release of Dr. Baldwin-Johnson's medical letter on November 3rd) the single most often pointed at "proof" that Sarah Palin was pregnant with Trig last spring. I am expecting this to be the most scrutinized post that I have put on my blog, and I can't risk anything less than total accuracy. I simply did not have the time this evening to finish this post. So, again, my apologies, but I truly have been dealing since Monday - over the holidays - with questions that I never anticipated arising when I first asked him to do this work.

Meanwhile, I'd like to offer two comments I have received in emails over the last two days. Both individuals express my feelings exactly, and I thought I'd share their words with you.

This from B******:

I'm a mother of 5, one of those crispy granola homebirthing gals that somehow survived the Reagan years.

And I don't KNOW exactly why it bothers me that Sarah Palin lied about having that baby, but I never believed it...not from the first picture, timeline, breath of information about it. Most of the careful moms I know don't believe it either. It just seems so wrong to me that someone would wave a prop baby around for as unimportant a reason as being elected. It seems wrong that she'd drag Bristol through it. It just isn't nice behavior.

That's hardly a political jeremiad, is it? :oD

So I check into your site occasionally, and I wanted to thank you before the old year ends for helping represent, well, the common sense of women. As Judy Grahn so eloquently put it: "I swear it to you/ I swear it. on my common woman's head/. The common woman is as common. as a -loaf of bread/ and will rise /"

Back to my baking. Happy New Year. :o)

B******

And this from K*****

Watching Sarah Palin through your eyes and the eyes of blog commenters has been educational -- about her psychology, about our psychology as Americans, and the psychology of the media. Although we still don't know the truth, the evidence you amassed proves beyond a reasonable doubt that SP lied regarding her (non) pregnancy and the circumstances of Trig's birth. But no external proof should have been needed. SP was given the benefit of a doubt that should never have existed.

That's by no means a criticism of your work, since the doubts were there-- and incredibly, still are-- but I wonder what would have happened had they been met more forcefully from the beginning by reporters and commentators.

Everyone who questioned her story said she had either been incredibly reckless or was lying. We use "incredibly" loosely, but here the word should have had its literal force. If SP had said last summer that she executed an eight-foot high jump, no one would have said she was either an incredible athlete or a liar. I suppose there's a difference, in that it is physically possible that a pregnant woman leaking amniotic fluid could have pulled the stunt she says she did without having to avail herself of business-class obstetrical facilities at 30,000 feet. But no woman in touch with reality would have risked it, and if SP was out of touch with reality for a moment, Todd was there to say no, but the down-to-earth "First Dude" gamely made the airline reservations. She should have been called out as a liar from the get-go, and her failure to respond with anything more than her own uncorroborated statement that Bristol was five months pregnant and couldn't have given birth to Trig (which, of course, did not prove that SP had), should have ditched her candidacy then and there.

We need to ask hard questions about Americans' apparent need for charismatic leaders, our eager willingness to suspend disbelief, to play along as if we were watching a movie or television show instead of choosing a leader with tremendous power over our lives. (The same was going on with Obama, but at least there is substance to him despite his inexperience, and he and his campaign did respond to accusations, while McCain-Palin simply stonewalled and sought to suppress evidence.) Via the internet, you and others are creating a new "journalism" that is our best hope in resisting the corrupt partnership of politics-as-entertainment and entertainment-as-journalism that will continue to serve up bread and circuses, indulgence and gossip, until the barbarians crash the gates.

God bless you, and merry Christmas,

K*****

More Material Mysteriously Disappears

2008-12-23T18:26:00.000-08:00

Or maybe not so mysteriously.

In September, Fox News compiled a five part series on Gov. Palin. I discussed these videos on this page of the website.

As of perhaps a week ago, all videos were still available on YouTube and working. Now they are gone. When you click on them, you get the message that they have been removed for terms of use violations.

That's all well and good, except for one teensy-weensy little thing. Parts 1 and 2 are still available on Fox's website, no problem.

Parts 3-5 (which include the long segments from which we got our screen shots showing a suspiciously square belly and the screen shots which show her hugging up tight to Piper's back with no "baby bump" in sight) are gone from Fox as well.

Never fear: I have archived copies. They have not disappeared completely. However, I cannot legally post them.

One has to wonder why Fox would ask YouTube to take those down, when, for example, all the interviews that Greta Van Sustern did with Todd Palin are still up on YouTube and playin' just fine. Draw your own conclusions.

The Photoshop report should be available tomorrow.

A

(Update: Numerous people have pointed out in comments that the links to the Frank videos that I posted from the website had been posted by a private individual who may have had his account terminated for legitimate reasons that had nothing to do with the posting of these videos, and other copies of the videos are available on YouTube. I will research this this morning and hopefully find new links.

HOWEVER, there is no doubt that when you go to Fox and search on Sarah Palin, parts one and two were there (as of last night) and three through five were gone.)