Or....The Amazing Shape Shifting of Sarah Palin in 2008. A conversation with Prof. Brad Scharlott

LN: I am back with Professor Brad Scharlott. Today he offers his analysis of the few photographs available on the Internet of Mrs. Palin purportedly pregnant in the Spring of 2008. Here he compresses them into a fascinating timeline.

BS: Let’s examine changes in Sarah Palin’s shape in the month or so before April 18, 2008, when she claimed to give birth to Trig. Consider the following four pictures, all of which have been lightened to show better detail, but no other changes have been made:
The first picture, on the far left, appeared in the Anchorage Daily News on March 14, 2008, nine days after Palin announced that she was seven months pregnant, and four and half weeks before she allegedly gave birth to Trig.

The next picture, to the right, was published on April 14 of this year (more than three years after it was taken) in the Anchorage Daily News, accompanying an article by Julia O’Malley titled “Make. It. Stop.” (The “It” she wants stopped is any further examination of the faked-pregnancy question. The point of the picture was to “prove” that Palin was pregnant in March 2008.) This picture, as far as I can determine, was not published in 2008.

Next over are two screen shots, one above the other, taken a fraction of a second apart as a video camera panned down. These were taken by Israeli filmmaker Elan Frank on either April 8 or 9 (he shot footage on both days). Palin, standing in her kitchen in these shots, was talking on a phone while smoothing her scarf. Fox News bought the video footage and showed the clip these screen shots came from. (The screen shots were captured at about the 0:16 mark of this video: Elan Frank Interviews Sarah Palin-April 2008 part 1.)

Finally we see Palin shot from the side five days before the purported birth. This picture is a cropped version of a photo showing Palin being interviewed by KTVA-TV reporter Andrea Gusty in the capitol building in Juneau. The curious circumstances surrounding the origin of this photo will warrant a closer look in the future.

Laura, does anything jump out at you as you view these four pictures? Keep in mind they are in chronological order.

LN: The first thing I notice is that Mrs. Palin appears wider in March than she does in April. But playing the contrarian here, I’m going to say that’s just angles and lighting.

But also (too) in March, Mrs. Palin appears to have, as crazy as it sounds, a bulge in her upper back. And worse still, a light stripe down her back, just along her shoulder blade. As if she had a bullet proof vest or something ELSE PADDED on underneath her black suit. Again, I recognize that I have a tendency to SHOUT a lot during our conversations. But you see, I feel as if I’ve just fallen down a rabbit hole and I want to make sure you can HEAR ME because these photos are freaking me out. And I just want someone to Make.It.Stop.

The third thing is that the final picture, known widely as the “Gusty Photo,” indicates a rather massive amount of fetal development over the course of four days. And of course, the absence of the ubiquitous scarf. As if to say, “Look at this!”

BS:  Let’s take those points one at a time. As to Palin’s width, she looks wider in that photo than the human eye would have perceived her because of lens distortion. The right-hand picture in this box is how she would have looked to someone viewing her at the scene:

For the technically oriented, the distortion fix involved a “keystoning” correction (because the photograph was shot from below) and a horizontal perspective correction because a wide-angle lens caused a “stretching” of elements. (And thanks to commenters on your blog, Laura, who helped me correctly diagnose the distortion issue in this picture after we discussed it here a short time ago.)

So you are right, Laura, she truly was not as “wide” as she appeared in the first picture – which makes the contrast between the first and second pictures in the timeline box even greater. Let me also say I am virtually certain she is wearing the same jacket in both those pictures – note the collar and the pockets. (It may be the same jacket in all the pictures, in fact, but it’s harder to tell with the last ones.) So the jacket is big enough to accommodate a very pregnant Palin. But for some reason she is not filling it out in the first picture. And note the flat stomach below her scarf.

In the second picture, the extra room in that jacket is being taken up by … what? … huge shoulder pads? Not to be unkind, but Palin looks like a linebacker in this photo. And compare that torso profile to the one in the two screen shots just to the right of it – she looks positively svelte in those. Plus Palin’s profile simply looks wrong in this photo. I just looked at a bunch of side shots of very pregnant women online, and the way her back slopes from her head seems abnormal. With most very pregnant women, the weight of the large belly causes the back to arch forward, but in this shot of Palin, the heaviness of her torso seems to hang straight down from her shoulders.

And finally the most remarkable change of all – the appearance of a large round belly on April 13, whereas four or five days earlier, there was no baby bump at all in the screen shots. Again, the Elan Frank video played on Fox News and can be seen on YouTube; its authenticity cannot be doubted. And while the fourth photo appeared under mysterious circumstances, there is no reason to think it has been altered.

So my question to you, Laura, is what could account for the change in body mass in those four photos – she seems to go from smaller to bigger to smaller to bigger, and not just a little bit. The change from the video screen shots to the last photo are especially striking.

LN: See, I disagree with you here on one point, Brad. I think she does look like there is something under her ubiquitous black jacket in the Elan Frank video still shots. So I wouldn’t say completely flat. But certainly slimmer than what, quite literally, pops out at us in the right-hand side Gusty photo. But remember that those Frank photos were taken during the same shoot as the Sponge Sarah Square Pillow photo we analyzed the other day. And I might add that someone contacted me to say that he is a Photoshop “expert” himself and that everything you said about the square pillow was right on target.

As far as explaining this to you, I cannot. I would like to claim, yet again, angles and lighting and some other-worldly force that can explain the shape shifting that went on with this woman and her pregnancy. All I can say is that in a recent post I showed myself at 5 months. I got big. And then I got bigger. And then bigger with my own pregnancy. There was simply no going back.

And speaking of backs: Do you think that is the bulge and outline of a pregnancy belly? Don’t you have a photo of one of those things somewhere?

BS: Well, there’s no getting around the idea that Palin might have been wearing a prosthesis – a “fat suit” – in the second and fourth photos. A variety of such fake pregnancy devices are available on the Internet and through other channels. In the graphic below I show one from eBay and superimpose it over the image of Palin from the Gusty photo.


BS: And yes, Laura, as you suggest, a fat suit could account for the bulge in the shoulder and other oddities in the second picture.

I’m not going to sugar-coat this. I can see no explanation other than a prosthesis for the astonishing changes in Palin’s body shape in the month before her purported delivery of Trig. And I seriously would like your readers in the comments section to let me know if they have other ideas.

LN: Thank you again, Brad, for your time. I also want to highlight this fascinating website:

I know there are a lot of models out there and places to purchase fake baby bellies (who knew?) But I found this site interesting because it shows the different stages one can purchase.  And how small and portable these devices can be (and how easily they might fly back from Texas!)

And finally, I want to leave this post with this thought: I am wide open to hearing from anyone, anywhere, who knows for certain that the then-governor was indeed pregnant - and can prove it. Because the idea of a sitting governor strapping on fake baby foam, in an assortment of sizes and colors, just gets too crazy town for me. And I want – I welcome ­- someone to prove that Mrs. Palin gave birth to Trig on 4/18/08 so we can put this puppy to bed (even though the good neonatologist has shown in a recent, barn-burner of a post, that the baby presented as such was born earlier than that day.)

Problem is:  I’m hearing about a definitive hoax from “readers in the know.” Trust me when I say that a great many of you in Alaska are reading this blog and writing to me. And so far I’m only hearing from folks who say it was common knowledge that Mrs. Palin faked it. And it was common knowledge that “other” family members were pregnant.  Others who supposedly can offer proof of a pregnancy are closing down like Ipswich clams. Please, email me at:  LaNovakAuthor@yahoo.com



05/25/2011 09:48

Palin has a movie release in June. Her film maker requested all types of complimentary archival footage from Alaska news stations:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/palins_secret_weapon_new_film_to_premiere_in_june_109949.html (see: 9th para on 1st page)

There are also 3rd party media monitoring companies what capture and sell news video. I've been looking into a couple of these.

Can we a poll going on one of the blogs to rank video that should be requested? If Laura or the professor endorses a paypal account to fund research efforts, I will contribute.

05/25/2011 10:41

Frank Bailey pretends that her refusal to prove that Trig was hers, was not a Red Flag! In his book he describes the continuing vexing problem of the rumors about Bristol and Trig. Yet he doensn't discuss how crazy it is that she could have ended it then, before anyone in the country knew of her so she can't claim that the liberal soros's funded crazies need to be snubbed or something. Why didn't she just prove it then, in April/May of 2008 before it was a National issue? And Bailey doesn't think this is Odd?

05/25/2011 10:52

Notice the Preggo costume that Brad bought its over the shoulder exactly shows under the jacket of the second 3.27 pic!Padded shoulders/back distoring the line of her back.
The fake preggo site their preggo bellies are just that, "bellies" and the girls arms, back stay normal.
Also lucky for Sarah it IS Alaska in March would be somewhat cold, so she can keep her jacket on ALL THE TIME, unlike the girls in the "Fake preggo" website.
Also,too...the fake belly superimposed on the Gutsy photo, pretty much says it all... Great work.

05/25/2011 11:09

Bravo. Bravo. There's no other explanation for such shapeshifting, except for her ill use of various prosthetics.

Great work.

05/25/2011 11:16

That fake pregnancy suit, as shown above, was taken from Amazon.com


It was only $38.99 at the time. It is now $45.99 but the point I was trying to make is that it was cheap, a lot cheaper than some of those "better" strap on tummies. And we all know $arah hates paying for anything out-of-pocket that can't be charged-off to a legal defense fund, the RNC or $arahPAC.

05/25/2011 11:25

The Gusty photo was uploaded at high resolution to Flickr and then the resolution was lowered. Why? I think the reason was to prevent folks like us viewing the photo in detail that would show the straps under the coat. But O'Malley et al foolishly published the 3.27 photo in order to prove the pregnancy but miscalculated how damaging it would be if someone lightened the photo to make the straps visible.

05/25/2011 11:29

Thank you, Laura and Brad. I have no ideas other than a fake baby belly. To read how such rapid growth would rupture a uterus,
see PalinPeytonPlace.blogspot.com.

05/25/2011 12:02

Interesting lineup. Quite a leap in belly size in the 4 or 5 days between the Elan Frank screen shots and the Gutsy photo. 5 days after the Gutsy photo the airline attendants couldn’t tell she was pregnant.
No answers – but questions/comments!
What was the date of the spouses luncheon?
What was the date of the photo/video of the students meeting her (by surprise) on the back steps?
Does Fox own all of the Elan Frank video? Is there some still on the cutting room floor? Has anyone contacted him?
There is another screen shot of the Elan Frank video that shows Sarah getting out of a chair that is very compelling.
Thanks! This is fascinating.

05/25/2011 12:03

People offering proof and then disappearing?

Welcome to my world Laura.

05/25/2011 12:06

The same pale vertical stripe-like swath appears in her jacket in the March 14 pic, in the front. Which would mean it isn't explained by the empathy belly, as she is flat as a board here.

In the Gusty photo, the jacket buttons (at least some of them) appear to be dark, whereas they're light in the March pic. Otherwise, the longish arms could have been rolled up. It's probably the same jacket. In any case, very poorly fitted, and it probably reeked by the time she was done with it on Apr. 17.

05/25/2011 12:13

@Melly: Remember that 2 male reporters were shown her fabric covered whatever - so on those days she probably had a white under shirt. In each case, then, white would have shown thru.

05/25/2011 12:15

Brad & Laura,

Being a guy, this probably sounds a little silly, but I wore one of those prego prosthesis for a couple of hours at a "baby fair" several years ago. The model I wore looked very similar to the overlay shown above in the bottom set of photos. But the nurse who asked me to do the "demo" called it an Empathy Suit.

Honest-to-God, I think it weighed 35-40 lbs. After only a couple of minutes, it was impossible NOT to walk like all of the other preggo Moms-to-be that were at the fair.

I was pretty fit in those days, but getting up after sitting on a couch was awkward... I had to scoot to the edge and then shift my center of gravity as I stood up. Also, too, I still could not sit in a chair and cross my legs bc of my, er, baby bump. haha

Just wearing that thing for 2 hrs that afternoon wore me out completely, and my feet and lower back were sore that night and the next day, also, too. So I guess it worked, because I had nothing but empathy for the last 2 or 3 months of the pregnancy.

Guy's can maybe relate this to trying to cross your legs while sitting in the driver’s seat of a 2-seat sports car with the steering wheel tilted low. It just doesn't happen. Try leaning forward. There's a steering wheel there so you can only go just so far.

Sarah's bar-chair pillow belly didn't sound "right" in the video; neither did it seem hard/tight enough when she pushed on it. At that stage of my wife's "real" pregnancy, pushing on her belly would cause our son to shift inside the womb and the shape of her baby bump would become lop-sided...right before she'd have to run/waddle to the bathroom to tinkle.

Bottom Line. With the exception of the Gusty photos, nothing about Sarah's "pregnancy" with Trig is compatible with an authentic childbirth. Stop.the.Hoax.


05/25/2011 12:18

There must be video footage of the First Family at the 3/22 Prayer Breakfast in Anchorage. Franklin Graham was the guest speaker.

Palin was in Juneau from March 24 thru April 14. She had numerous public events, bill signings, and the close of the legislative session in this time period. There should be gobs of video material created by the 3 major broadcasters and the various public access channels in AK.

Maybe some AK journalist will open the archives when they realize how Palin's movie-making friends are cherry-picking the archives for her hagiography.

There are also companies in the business of recording, archiving, and tagging all broadcast news programs. Large company PR firms subscribe to these services to track press coverage. Some of these firms include:


How can we crowd-source this research? What's the major obstacle? Funding? Eyes to review video footage?

05/25/2011 12:38

Has anyone ever shown the Mar.26th photo of Palin at the Alaska Museum,the one taken with the little girl,and the April 13 photo to a OB-GYN and asked if it's possible for a pregnant woman to balloon out that much in 2 weeks and 4 days.
I'm 66yrs. old and have seen a lot of pregnant women in my life,women I personally know,and none of them ever had a flat lower belly at 7 and a half months and 2 weeks later looked 8 or 9 months pregnant.
Those 2 pictures are what finally convinced me that she wasn't pregnant with Trig.

Dis Gusted
05/25/2011 12:45

Nobody saw the Gusty photo until August 2008....correct? The photographer did not release it and was 'flummoxed' as to how it got out there.

05/25/2011 12:50

Laura and Brad -- As one of many who have followed this for so long, I say THANK YOU. I hope you will comment, later, on why you think Dunn, Bailey, and McGinness have chosen to be Trignostics. To help me understand it.

05/25/2011 12:58

@Amy1: Dunn had the first book and did not want to go too far out on a limb - fear of backlash, being called a tin-foil hat wearer, etc.

I can't figure Bailey out. My guess is he has to know the truth but for religious/moral reasons thinks it would be wrong to out the Palins on the Trig matter (but I could well be wrong).

McGinniss is the wild card. He doesn't want to reveal too much of what he has written yet AND he is not done writing - so if we can stir the pot now, maybe that will make it easier for him to be really bold in his last chapter. That's one reason this spadework by Laura is really important.

05/25/2011 13:09

It's not really shocking for a mentally ill individual to strap on a maternity costume and publicly declare oneself pregnant because crazy people do crazy things. However, the main shocker here is how did such an individual get so close to the Presidency?????

Cracklin' Charlie
05/25/2011 13:11

I'm with you on this one, Dis Gusted. That photo looks totally out of place. Like it was added in later as evidence of something that never happened. That photo and the "shower" photos just seem not to fit into the timeline. I think the Gusty and 'shower' pics are campaign relics.

05/25/2011 13:24

Was screechy that big in Texas like she was on April 13th? Or did she wear the pillow?

05/25/2011 13:29

A few pictures were taken in Texas at the gov's conference - and she had the fat suit on.

05/25/2011 14:00

05/25/2011 14:02

I'm not really sure why the text didn't go through previously.

Now that we have previously unseen photos released by Bailey, will you bring back the Neo Dr to analyze them? Those pics look like the kitchen pics and the Sally Heath Trig pic. I only see one baby. AND you can see the ear in the new ones. Ruffled. One baby

Conscious at last
05/25/2011 14:18

What will finally be accepted as "PROOF?"

Has Shailey Tripps' account of a non-pregnant Palin on a massage table in March 2008 been disqualified?

Why do we need the authority of someone else? We are not in court here.

We are thoughtful folks exploring the question of a faked pregnancy for 2 1/2 years now. Many capable researchers have gathered extensive evidence to show that Mrs. Palin faked her pregnancy.

Someone needs to put it ALL TOGETHER into a clear and coherent thesis and say "LOOK, here it is..... Unless someone has conclusive proof to the contrary, this evidence, information, etc. gathered over two years indicates that Palin faked the pregnancy with Trig."


05/25/2011 14:37

Thanks, BradS.

05/25/2011 14:38

Problem is, there is no "proof" without medical records or a birth certificate. Dunn is correct. While I don't find it surprising that Bailey didn't discuss Trig much (which I am thankful), he laid his balls on the line to feed the "Trig is Sarah's" story. If the real story comes out, his book will look ridiculous (if people remember it in a week that is). There's no actual proof Bristol was pregnant before Tripp. Wouldn't Bailey, who spoke with the Palins constantly on all subjects, have suspected something? We know other legislators in Juneau hated Sarah and would absolutely start a rumor millto make her look bad. Read Phil's posts back then. Lydabots were the sources for much of this. She's got a lot of beef with Sarah. Frank's statements from Todd (if authentic) tell us Levi was a new fixture around that time and that no one approved. That doesn't jibe with what we've been believing. However, it does jibe with Bristol and Levi having major issues from the beginning and not getting along most of 08.

all in all, no proof is public right now. Face it, palingates heavily rely on sources who could easily be lying. Several people have led us down weird paths before. ie MediaInsder, bluetx? and Im sure many others.

The only thing weknow that could possibly stop Sarah is her record. Her personal life, despite the tabloids, should be off limits, as nothing is and can be proven. They are obviously growing closer and stronger the more people attack them. That doesnt look good for us when we print rumors as fact.

05/25/2011 14:56

Uhm, Brad?

The "spadework" was done by Audrey and the Palingates researchers. I know this is news to some, but it's old hat to anyone who's been following them since August of 2008.

05/25/2011 14:59

Okay Laura, I have been wanting this to stop for a long time. Most of us here have been in on this from day one and it is just maddening that no one has solved it or is even interested in it.

I personally think that no professionals have wanted to touch it in case she really did give birth to Trig. They don't want to risk their reputation. Either that or someone has told them to shut up, but still not everyone obeys and it appears to me that everyone has obeyed if that scenario is true.

Even if she really did give birth to Trig and she isn't showing us the birth certificate because he was born months earlier they would look stupid. All she has to say is that she wasn't sure he would make it so she didn't want to tell.

It sounds kind of forgivable for lying. Poor, poor Sarah what a saint and how hard it must have been for her. I can hear the flying monkeys now. Although I still can't see how they could have a baby in a hospital for that long without someone noticing it was her unless she never visited him? Maybe in another state where she wasn't known? But even then someone would have recognized her after she was nominated (unless you lived in a hole).

As far as Bailey not noticing, he is a man (not to be mean guys but most men really aren't that observant). Plus, people see what they want to see. If someone says they are pregnant why would you even look for signs they weren't? Who wouldn't believe she wasn't pregnant?

About five years ago a woman in OH faked a pregnancy and then killed another pregnant woman and stole her newborn. Everyone thought she was pregnant. Why would they think she wasn't? The only reason she was caught was because she lived around here and of course, it was all over the news. Had she done the same thing miles away she would probably have gotten away with it.

I still don't know what to think. I honestly can't see a pregnant woman in any of the pictures and film that are available (except for the infamous Gusty photo). Yet, I can't wrap my head around the wild story either. It is so unbelievable that I can't believe anyone wouldn't think it was just plain damn odd.

And again, we are talking about SP. She is just plain bizarre. I could see her faking a pregnancy just as well as really giving birth as it was told wild ride and all. She is really that weird.

I still can't believe that she is going to run for president (it really looks like she is) if she didn't have Trig. Arnold may have been able to keep his secret love child hidden but he is lucky it lasted that long. People always talk. It is just human nature.

Honestly, I wish this woman had never come out of the woodwork. She is bad not only for the country but for the whole world.

05/25/2011 15:06

P.S., Brad, could you not call it a "fat suit"?? It sounds crass and is, furthermore, imprecise.

On another note:
Could you address this phenomenon in which photos don't seem to be regarded as "proof"??

I feel like we are living in a "forever-OJ" world: where no amount of evidence will be sufficient.

05/25/2011 15:09

@JR. Stairwell still is from Elan Frank footage, so Apr. 8 or 9. I believe the photo Audrey had is the same time.

@Phyllis. PalinPeytonPlace.blogspot.com has explained why the growth from March photos to Gusty-sized isn't medically possible.

05/25/2011 15:14

Thank you for the excellent conversation. I was glad to read Laura's reminder that the screen shot from the Frank video is also the time of the square belly. I believe the screen shot above comes from Fox's American Woman, Part 4. Watching that whole segment of Palin in the kitchen will show that there is indeed a bulge under the open jacket and scarf.

There must be an OB somewhere who is willing to go on the record with an opinion based on the photos -- either a possible medical explanation for the phenomenal change from Mar. 14 to April 13 or that the apparent change is not indicative of a human pregnancy.

Andrew Sullivan interviewed quite a few doctors about the 'wild ride'. Perhaps, he could suggest possible contacts. Perhaps, there's a renowned OB in Canada or Europe who would speak up. It's frustrating considering how many docs are eager to analyze photos for cosmetic procedures.

05/25/2011 15:32

There is photographic evidence that Sarah Palin did not look 7 + months pregnant in March/April of 2008. And then she did. And then she didn't at all. And then she did. In that order. These are facts based on dated photos and would not be a considered a rumor.
There is no evidence that Sarah Palin gave birth in April of 2008. Repeat - there is not one shred of evidence that Sarah gave birth in April of 2008. That Sarah was pregnant and gave birth like she claims - why that would be a rumor started by her. Weird, huh?
There is a rumor part - "some" said Bristol was pregnant in late 2007/early 2008 when she dropped out of school for months and went to live with her aunt. This rumor was around long before Sarah put a square pillow under her shirt.

05/25/2011 16:21

I'm not really sure why the text didn't go through previously.

Now that we have previously unseen photos released by Bailey, will you bring back the Neo Dr to analyze them? Those pics look like the kitchen pics and the Sally Heath Trig pic. I only see one baby. AND you can see the ear in the new ones. Ruffled. One baby

Ahhh but is it the same baby as at the RNC? Those ears are not ruffled or have an opening in front of the tragus.....hmmm

Bobcat Logic
05/25/2011 16:29

Re: Dunn's book.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through it, and though Dunn does not give us any explicit "smoking guns", he puts a lot of of facts in context.. in ways that make me go : Hmmmm...

He doesn't connect the dots, but the careful, informed reader can.

(see, for example, pp 159 -160 or 141-142)

05/25/2011 16:34

Since all signs point to a pres run, shes obviously not too worries about the Trig conspiracy.

05/25/2011 16:38

to comeonpeople,

I think the baby looks like that baby. The ear matches Trigs ear and the size is right. It never occurred to me that more than one baby was used. I mean, look how many people held him. When would they swap babies? People wouldn't notice?

05/25/2011 16:46


But the "bristol lived in Anch" timeline is off in many peoples minds. Bristol lived in Anch starting in Jan. Before than she was last seen publicly in mid Oct. 5+ mos didnt pass with no Bristol sightings.

In reality, if we're using photo evidence, Bristol got smaller all around from June to Oct 07. She was very roundfaced and plump at the picnic in June 07. She had slimmed in her face months later. I don't bring up the TRL video because its awful qualitywise and shes in the corner usually. My first observation was of her tight skirt though. I think Bailey gave us clues that, yes Bristol and Levi started a fiery relaitonship out of the gate, a relationship that Todd obviously never approved of. I dont think Trig has anything to do with Bristol. Personal opinion.

Keep in mind that the Wasilla Class of 08 holds a record number of teen births. It is a joke amongth teens in the valley.

People in AK suck at keeping secrets. Some teen someone would have sold the Trig is Bristols story to themedia for shitloads of money. Matt Scott got 10k for facebook posts last Nov and bragged about it, despite getting blasted by his peers.

05/25/2011 16:59

There should be more news video to analyze. Shouldn't we try to get news video for the bill signing at the Alaska State Museum if this is the strangest photo?

We have seen photographs showing Palin looking pregnant on 3/22 (Prayer Breakfast) and flat on 3/26 (Alaska State Museum). It seems reasonable to try to confirm the photos with news video. The Anchorage media outlets should be able to identify if they have video of the Prayer Breakfast on 3/22. The Juneau outlets should be able to identify if they have video of the 3/26 bill signing. If the videos confirm the photos, this is a compelling blog post.

Brad or Laura, are you willing to request the news videos for these events?

05/25/2011 17:13

@Rubbernecking: Video is of such lower quality for screen grabs vs print photos of the events, I don't think much would be gained.

05/25/2011 17:47

speaking of photos, I would like to know why that tiny white dot exists on the "nail in the coffin" picture. That event Id like to see video of. I also would like to sit down with Bailey, who seems to have seen Sarah the most, and pick his brain about these things. There are reasons he believes what was written in his book. I dont think he would have incriminated a child but why did he go on the record saying Trig is Sarahs? Isnt he afraid he'll appear stupid if not true?
or he is thinking that he will be in good company with the rest of the people who believe Trig is Sarahs?

I still dont think people are going to care about this, honest to God. I mentioned to my former roommate who works in marketing/pr in ny/la and she shut me up quickly. i think Sarahs too much of a joke candidate on a global scale to win anything major. Yes she has supporters who will always be there, but so does other controversial people. Shes a woman therefore she garners sympathy.

05/25/2011 18:32

@Deanna. I recall the picture of Bristol at a lake in June '07 where she was very slender, and then the "Christmas" pictureS (more than one) in Sept. where she had noticeably gained weight in her face and belly. I disagree with you that she lost weight from June to Sept. 07.

05/25/2011 18:45

FLgal says that "there is no 'proof' without medical records or a birth certificate."

I disagree. The totally flat belly on March 14, 2008, a month before she claimed to give birth to a 6 pound baby, is proof she was not carrying said baby.

No one has offered any explanation for that photo other than that she wasn't pregnant. Can you explain it?

Bobcat Logic
05/25/2011 20:30

Well, it looks like the Palin defenders ("no story here folks, everyone just move along") have made it to your blog, Laura.

Here's why Palin's pregnancy hoax is potentially a huge and important story:
1) Whether or not Palin fades away now, she came uncomfortably close to being VP and President.

2) She could not have done this without the help and complicity of some very high ranking people in the GOP (and beyond).

Sarah is just not bright enough to bring this off on her own, and she clearly didn't. (She has already made enough serious mistakes with her part in this scenario to give her supporters pause.)

The question here, is, as it was in Watergate, "What did they know (and do)? And when did they know (and do) it?

The blanks are slowly being filled in, and anyone who claims this is not major and currently relevant news is, I suggest, deluded, uninformed, or in the pay of someone sinister.

05/25/2011 21:40

@Bobcat Logic

I agree, good comment.

05/25/2011 21:54

I'm with @Bobcat Logic. There's resistance to pursuing the story because the truth will reflect badly on many people: McCain, his staffers, the political press, the pundits and operatives who packaged and served her up.

05/25/2011 22:08

BradS, Thank you answering re the Trignostics of Dunn, Bailey, and McGinness. Why do YOU feel there is enough proof for you to discuss it, when the others don't?

I don't buy the idea that there's no proof. In an insurance cheat court case, where a wheelchair-bound man claims paralyzed legs, why does a photo of him jogging during his period of disability count as proof that he is lying? But not SP's flat profile so soon before the supposed delivery date?

I observe that this is enough proof for YOU to state publicly that it looks v suspicious, but the other writers don't see their way clear to do so.

I say it's either cowardice, blindness, or game-playing to refuse to explore the Palin Hoax. And I commend you and Laura for having the guts to stick with it.

05/25/2011 22:28


Another shape shifter! Have you compared that photo from AlaskaReport(?), dated 07-19-08, which showed Brestal standing outside at a fair wearing a zipped up brown leather jacket with her hands in her pockets, looking all snug and thin, with those photos from the RNC convention six weeks later where she was wearing that stuffed dark grey dress allegedly five months pregnant?



05/26/2011 05:00

Who do you want to believe - me or your lying eyes?

I think that the pictures you've shown ought to be enough to warrant great scepticism on the part of journalists (who in my opinion, are supposed to be skeptical).

The other main avenue to take is approaching people who might know and who might crack.

Here are people who probably know:
Sarah Palin (will never confess)
Todd Palin (will only confess if Sarah pisses him off sufficiently)
Dr CBJ (can't confess due to medical ethics)
Insurance people (someone may have processed claims relating to this)
A judge who made Sarah and Todd Trig's parents
Medical staff who may have tied (even seared) Sarah's tubes shut before
Bristol, especially if she gave birth to TriG
Sarah's sister Heather if a pregnant Bristol was staying with her aunt
Levi Johnston
Shailey Tripp, who massaged Sarah (apparently came forward but then lawyered up)
McCain staff, especially those who allegedly removed pictures of Sarah during the relevant period
Any more? Please add...

Unfortunately most of these people either have to be silent or they'll get into trouble - or have to be loyal or they'll lose access to their golden-egg-laying goose. The one person without an ethical or financial motive - or even a motive of loyalty - was Shailey Tripp. She massaged Sarah when Sarah was allegedly pregnant and reported that Sarah did not seem at all pregnant. She has since, to my understanding, clammed down and lawyered up - which makes me think that the Palin mafia may have something on her. Not hard to threaten a masseuse, I expect - threaten her with a prostitution charge or something and she won't have anywhere to turn (I'm just speculating here but I flatter myself that it's intelligent speculation).

So there may not be any cracks until the financial/ethical/loyalty incentives wear down a bit, and someone in the know has more to gain from speaking out than from keeping quiet. I could imagine someone from the McCain campaign speaking out, especially if Palin makes a bid for the presidency - and if that person was working for a rival candidate. On the other hand it makes McCain look like a fool so they might keep silent. Or Levi and/or even Bristol, once they feel sufficiently independent. Or others, if they feel no longer threatened by the Palin mafia.

Another set of people are these people's friends and acquaintances, but then the information becomes hearsay and may not be sufficient to make the press pay attention.

05/26/2011 05:17

Shailey did not lawyer up as a result od speaking about her massage. Shailey never came forward with absolute proof. She has said "I had no reason to believe..."

She also has given inaccurate descriptions of Wasilla, which caused residents who once listened to her to unfollow her. She also has stated she has nothing to offer writer who was writing books on Sarah.

She has said in comments and emails that she believes the palins share love between them. Contradiction surrounds her as it sounds Sarah. Let's not put time into her.

I dont think the Palin kids know where Trig came from. Levi certainly doesnt know.Everything is hearsay about Sarah. Anytime I see a teen or another parent comment on a picture of Trig, they say, "aw Willow your brother is the cutest" or "kiss that beauttiful baby for me"something similar.

I sincerely dont think anyone but sarah, todd, medical people and maybe a staffer or 2 knows about Trig.

05/26/2011 05:36

o/t but lol Laura on the Ipswich clam comment!!
Going to our shore house this weekend..we love to go digging for clams and I just love the comment!!

05/26/2011 05:40

Wed, 25 May 2011 16:38:36
to comeonpeople,

I think the baby looks like that baby. The ear matches Trigs ear and the size is right. It never occurred to me that more than one baby was used. I mean, look how many people held him. When would they swap babies? People wouldn't notice?

Wed, 25 May 2011 16:46:36

You say the ear of the RNC Tri-G looks like the ear in the kitchen photos baby? Really? Praise jeebus it's a miracle!!
What were they feeding that kid to grow like a loaf of rising bread in 4 months??

05/26/2011 05:51

V said:
Dr CBJ (can't confess due to medical ethics)

huh??????????????????????????????????? Medical ETHICS are precosely WHY she needs to state that she did NOT say it it "Not unreasonable for Sarah to fly" when she has premature rupture of membranes in a high risk pregnancy. Medical ethics are precisely WHY she needs to state that Tri-G was not born at MatSu regional, which does not have a NICU or pediatric/neonatal intensivist on staff. Medical ethics are precisely WHY CBJ should have delivered Tri-G at Providence, were Sarah even pregnant at all. CBJ may be Sarah's physician, but not sure she is bound to HIPAA to protect something that never happened.
When CBJs involvement is fully known, she could be in big trouble morally, ethically or criminally . She should clear her name if Sarah used and abused her.

05/26/2011 05:58

But confidentiality is a psrt of medical ethics, right? Which is why CBJ can't talk.

I admit that I haven't followed everything that has been reported on the nets with respect to Shailey Tripp, but I've always thought that a masseuse would probably not be in a very strong position to come forward.

However, I do find it extraordinarily interesting that the (2nd?) son of Bristol and Levi is named "Tripp." Coincidence? Or is something strange going on?

Joie Vouet
05/26/2011 08:10

It's been said that the first picture on the left has been "uniformly lightened."

Is the area of interest -- in the original -- uniformly black?

05/26/2011 08:30

@Just sayin,
Bugger off! Laura specifically asks that anyone with actual proof or evidence post or e-mail on this thread.
"Anytime I see a teen or another parent comment on a picture of Trig, they say, "aw Willow your brother is the cutest" or "kiss that beauttiful baby for me"something similar."

What does this mean? Are you carried around in Trig's diaper bag so that you would know what people say regarding this beauttiful baby? Are you family? Or are you just an annoying troll?

05/26/2011 08:40

Gryphen has a great post today with your photos, and he urges anyone with info to call you. Terrific!

The comments there made me want to mention two things.

1. If Dunn, Bailey, McGinniss, Maddow, Shannon, et al. do not feel it is the right time to get off the Trignostic fence, how does anyone expect a private citizen holding real info (pro or con) to speak up and put oneself at risk of the well-documented SP vindictiveness?

2. The audience for MSM discussion of the PalinHoax is not the choir at either extreme for this issue. It's the great middle area of voters who were hoaxed and who mainly believe that SP is not worth their attention, and so they are giving SP's enablers a pass, too. Very dangerous, in my opinion. That's why I care about revealing the Palin Hoax. Whether or not SP is eventually prosecuted for her various undoubted crimes, I do wish we could remove her from the national dialogue ASAP.

05/26/2011 08:50

@Joie Vouet, the lightening technique is explained in an earlier post on 5/4. There's nothing mysterious about it: it's akin to turning on the lights in a dim room. It's helps our eyes more easily see a contrast that already exists in the photo.

@Karen, I don't think there's anything outlandish about @Justsayin comments. Whatever the secret is, the Palins have been very successful keeping it quiet. I think many of us suspected someone would have spoken up by now. I agree the FB comments aren't proof of much; if someone posted a negative comment about a family member on my FB page, I would delete it and ban the person from posting on my page. I would expect Willow to do the same.

Brad Scharlott
05/26/2011 08:57

JV: The picture as published cannot be uniformly black in a strict sense because you would not get variation when you lightened it. But your eye is not good at discerning very subtle distinctions in near-black colors. So why did Palin why a black suit suit throughout this period? I imagine that someone quite knowledgeable about video and photo principles (say, someone who had worked in the media) advised her that a black outfit would hide details the best.

05/26/2011 09:01

Another fascinating post. What possible honest motive could there be for women wearing "fake baby bellies" other than in a movie or a play? What kind of "gag" is a fake pregnancy? It seems to be all about deceit -- not particularly amusing.

05/26/2011 10:16

Great post! (Nothing new, actually, because all the pics have been around before, and even been juxtapositioned like this before, but no harm in bringing them out into the forefront again!)

As to Palin running/winning in 2012 or later: Everybody says that she can run, but most likely not win.
What I am afraid of though, is that nobody who claims thus is actually counting on the powers that be behind her: Koch brothers, Murdock, the guy (who sponsored her for some type of dinner where she showed up in her infamous f-m boots) that was around for Nixon also (forgot his name, but I believe it started with an A...), and, finally, DIEBOLD - the voting machine guys that are known to have rigged more than one election!

Bobcat Logic
05/26/2011 10:48

@ Barbara Alfaro who asks:
"What kind of "gag" is a fake pregnancy?"

Palin's fake pregnancy with a Down Syndrome child was/is her party's ticket to success with the right-to-life Fundies.

Republican/Fundie commentators were quick out of the gate, following her selection as the VP candidate, to declare her motherhood to a DS baby "the most important fact" of Palin's life! The most important reason to vote for her!

Trig was a major and necessary campaign prop for Palin and any GOP hopes of winning in 2008.

05/26/2011 11:06

"Since all signs point to a pres run, shes obviously not too worries about the Trig conspiracy."

I'm halfway to being convinced that Sarah thinks she gave birth to Trig. She IS that batshit crazy.

"Medical ETHICS are precosely WHY she needs to state that she did NOT say it it "Not unreasonable for Sarah to fly" when she has premature rupture of membranes in a high risk pregnancy. Medical ethics are precisely WHY she needs to state that Tri-G was not born at MatSu regional, which does not have a NICU or pediatric/neonatal intensivist on staff. Medical ethics are precisely WHY CBJ should have delivered Tri-G at Providence, were Sarah even pregnant at all. CBJ may be Sarah's physician, but not sure she is bound to HIPAA to protect something that never happened."

CBJ is in an awkward position. Remember when Trig was "born" nobody but Sarah knew that she was being considered for a VP nod. I've always believed that Sarah sprang that "pregnancy" on CBJ by announcing it publicly, and then persuaded her to go along with it on the grounds that it would protect Bristol's reputation and provide a loving home for a baby with Down syndrome. There's some evidence that Sarah wasn't happy about the pregnancy at all; remember, she took Bristol's phone away! And Bristol was out of the public for some time and moved in with her aunt.

I think Sarah tried to persuade Bristol to turn over the baby- may have even gotten custody of him legally, in that Saturday courtoom appearance that Bristol had- and then announced her own "pregnancy." We've all heard that Sarah can be a charmer and she was governor and in control of a lot of money that would be very useful for CBJ in her work with abused children. Even if she didn't threaten CBJ, it is widespread knowledge that Sarah is incredibly vindictive. She could have been coaxing CBJ with "We want him, I'm just pretending so everyone doesn't know about Bristol, you KNOW we'll love him..." and CBJ could have been thinking, "Well, it's a child in his family, his mom will be around, and what if she gets really pissed off at me and I apply for a grant for funds and she's angry?" It wouldn't take an open threat.

CBJ has stayed as quiet as she can, and her comment that "Sarah didn't ask permission to fly" is undoubtedly completely true. "It didn't seem unreasonable for her to fly" also struck me as being fully truthful. Sarah wasn't pregnant, so why ask permission and why would it be unreasonable? It looks to me like CBJ has tried to be as honest and truthful as she possibly can without revealing anything confidential.

05/26/2011 11:15

Nice analysis of the photos!

It would be great to see a timeline of Sarah's impossible physical positions for a truly pregnant woman. Perhaps your medical specialist could help with this one.

One example is the bending over while sitting in her chair at the panel discussion with then governor Janet Napolitano next to her. You can't do that with a soccer ball in your belly!

There are other examples of Sarah bending over to reach down outside the governor's mansion, perhaps some photo's of her sitting at her desk, movies of her getting into and out of chairs, etc. These positions and motions cannot happen if there is a solid 7 month fetus (plus embryonic fluid) in her belly. It does not matter where the camera is located or what she is wearing. It physically cannot happen, yes?

And also, Sarah, apparently bought (before her Trig pregnancy) clothes with the magic elastic in her waistbands, because she wears the same clothes before, during, and after her pregnancy, yes? Isn't this something women would like know about? It would it could save them lots of money! Sarah could make some real money contracting with WalMart to open a new Sarah Palin line of maternity wear. Buy once, wear forever!

05/26/2011 11:18

Palin has another daughter, Willow, not to mention an older son, Track. So I don't know why all the speculation is focused solely on Bristol.

Joie Vouet
05/26/2011 11:42

Brad Sharlott,

Are the histograms of the grey and black densities - in an area of interest - identical?

05/26/2011 11:53

Look, even if this were all completely true and someone could prove that Sarah Palin didn't give birth to this baby, what would that mean? Really. What does it matter? I find the woman...let's say unlikeable...and yet I don't see why anyone could care about this issue for more than a second.

05/26/2011 12:15

I once again feel a need to mention the 'palin mafia'. I'm sure there are many people who know at least part of the truth (a good con man let's no one know the whole truth). Some will not come forward due to a strange allegiance to $arah. Many others will hint anonymously, but will not go on the record due to FEAR. Read the books that are already out - make a list of those who have been personally harmed by the $palins. Then imagine why people with families are reluctant to take a stand.

The 'palin mafia' exists not only in Wasilla, but statewide via the state government.

I hope that someone will offer definite proof. I won't hold my breath till there is documented proof that would hold up in court on this aspect of her dysfunction. There are so many OTHER aspects...

Mr Pouncy
05/26/2011 12:20

There is a huge contradiction between that last photo and what Palin says happened on her flights home to Alaska.

Palin says her pregnancy got to a point at which it was no longer concealable. If she was as huge as that last photo shows, then yeah, it would be really hard to hide that.

But she has also said that upon boarding her flight in Texas and the one in Seattle, that none of the flight attendants noticed she was pregnant and therefore did not ask her about that whole flying-while-pregnant stuff. I think I've even read a couple of flight attendants on those flights say the same thing.

How on earth could anyone miss a belly like that, particularly amongst a group of people specifically trained to eyeball airplane passengers? I do not believe for one second that Palin boarded an airplane shaped the way she is in that last photo.

05/26/2011 12:22

Hi Brad and Laura, great post!!

I am so thrilled to see the Amazon fake pregnancy belly displayed so well! Laura, long ago I found that trixiepixgraphics site. Last fall, I finally bought one just to see what it really looked like. I knew that was not it. But I was also certain that the professional empathy belly that Audrey showed on Palin’s Deceptions did not look like what Palin was wearing. However, when I saw the comment by “alasscan” with the link to the Amazon fake pregnancy belly, I literally leaped out of my chair and shouted “EUREKA”! That was a TERRIFIC find! THAT fake pregnancy garment absolutely fits the peculiar shape of Sarah’s shoulders and back, and it’s CHEAP, just like Sarah! I love the fact that Brad super-imposed the fake pregnancy belly on the 4-13-08 Gusty pic.

Here is one of my photo comparisons:

@Bobcat Logic – I totally agree with your comment at 20:30. IMO, there has been immense pressure on the press to keep their mouths shut about the fake pregnancy. Sarah is similar to the inept Watergate burglars – I want to know who are the powers-that-be who have covered up and protected her.

05/26/2011 12:24

@nitpicker, what should the press and citizens do when a candidate tells a highly unusual story about his or her personal life? What if the candidates retells the story many time, publishes it in a book, and uses it to raise money on the lecture circuit?

Should the story be ignored? Should inconsistencies be researched?

05/26/2011 12:28

@Mr Pouncy - the flight attendants have never been interviewed directly. The SPOKESPERSON for Alaska Airlines, Caroline Boren, said “The stage of her pregnancy was not apparent by observation. She did not show any signs of distress”.

05/26/2011 12:36

@Suzy - glad to see you showing an interest, but you have much to learn. Please check the 3 videos and the babygate material listed on the side bar at

05/26/2011 13:25


Sully has linked to you again!

05/26/2011 13:34

FYI: In the an earlier post, curiouser posted a link to the source image on the ADN site. The image link is:


The photo was taken by an Associated Press photographer. You can also find it on the AP site (http://www.apimages.com). Search for image 080314029549 or the phrase "ALASKAN GOP RIFT".

05/26/2011 13:34

On Sarah's calendar for April 14, 2008 from 6:15 pm - 8:30 pm, she was supposed to attend "Guest Night Dinner - Honoring all Military Personnel to Vally and AK (Wasilla - Evangelo's 6:15 pm Buffet Line)"

I have never heard whether she attended this event or not. But can you imagine Sarah missing a chance to rub elbows with the troops? If she attended, you KNOW that people were going to take photos of their "beloved" governor. Just the name of the restaurant makes me cringe. Wouldn't members of the press be there to take pictures? Perhaps Bill McAllister?? I still think McAllister is in on this up to his ears, but paid handsomely, eh?

05/26/2011 13:44

is it possible that there are additional photos of Palin between Feb & April 2008 in newspaper archives of library reference rooms around AK, which survived the Internet cleansing the McCain campaign allegedly performed?

Ah enough
05/26/2011 13:50

Trig cannot be Bristol's He was way too small in April and May to have been born before March (if March is the believed bday)

Bristol was ONLY out of public view (our view) from mid Oct-Dec. that is NOT 5 mos. Bristol frequently dropped by Sarahs office as did the other kids in early 08.

Brad Scharlott
05/26/2011 14:34

Yes, kudos to PCG! It was b/c of her that I knew that the superimposition would work like a charm with that image. You done good, PCG.

Brad Scharlott
05/26/2011 14:40

JV: I have no idea what a histogram analysis would show. I assume you know where to find all the pictures online. If you consider that an important question, please do that analysis and let me know what you find: brad.scharlott@gmail.com.

05/26/2011 14:42

@Ah enough, I also think it's very sad that Palin's daughter has been subject to these rumors for over 3 years.

I would not have paid attention to this story except that Palin chose to make her pregnancy story so public. This story tells us something about Palin's judgment.

If Palin's story is true, she chose to fly 3000+ mi after starting labor. And she chose to publicize her story nationally despite rumors at home about her daughter. Why leave her daughter in this limbo?

If Palin's story is false, she chose to retell it many times for money and fame. Why put her daughter through this?

05/26/2011 15:41

@ ah enough

The baby we refer to as "Ruffles" could have been born prematurely at any time in 2008, or even late 2007 and kept in a NICU for several months. Ruffles is clearly a baby out of intensive care and depending on his/her course of treatment would look absolutely like that version of Trig.

As for the child shown at the RNC as Trig -- he appears much too large and chubby ever to have been Ruffles.

I have no idea what Bristol's role was in any of this, but the baby"Ruffles" -- first presented as "Trig" -- looks to me (and I have considerable preemie experience) quite likely to have been born before March.

I'd be interested in the neonatologist's observations.

Joie Vouet
05/26/2011 16:26

Brad Sharlott,

A histogram can be used to analyze a picture’s tonal distribution. If one part of the image is selected - an area of interest - a histogram shows its tonal range. That is why I'm curious whether a histogram of the original black would be identical to a histogram of the lightened grey. If not, some tonal information has been lost or added when the picture was lightened.

And I am also curious about this, because one way we perceive depth in a 2-dimensional picture is through tonal variations. It is that chiaroscuro that can give us an impression of volume.

I don't know whether this subject is important enough to spend a lot of time on, and I am not sure that what is at the ADN website are the pixels that came out of the camera. But I do see that Photoshop Elements 8 displays a histogram when a photo is loaded with Camera Raw, so it's not an impossible task. That histogram also has warning indicators which indicate when information is being clipped in the shadows or highlights as the picture is modified. But the best test would be, I think, to compare histograms of the black and grey pictures, in the area of interest.

When you altered the perspective of that picture, how did you find out things like camera sensor size, focal length of the lens, subject distance from the camera and angle of the shot? Those are important things to know in order to get the perspective "correction" right.

05/26/2011 17:01

Also, too, babygate at The Moderate Voice. Shaun needs some love.


05/26/2011 17:31

Thank you all for your great comments. I've scratched notes to answer most of you, but now can't read my own handwriting! What a day!

So, allow me to say that I welcome newcomers like Nitpicker b/c I DO see your point. I really do. And I am not adverse to sometimes wondering WHY? pursue this, if the baby is loved and well cared for.

But as others have answered, I think it's the lying that is involved. In a private family, it might be one thing to "cover" for a teenage daughter. But it's another to think of a future president strapping on foam and lying through such details.

However, I'm not sure it is all a lie. I remain open to all possibilities, including never knowing for sure. I am going to write another post with more thoughts on this at some point soon. But for now, I welcome you here. And as one of you said above, there is plenty of room for skepticism on this story. (and plenty of reason why others, like The Moderate Voice, get hammered by people for even being willing to question the odd "facts" of this entire story.

Dissent leads to good discourse. Doubters are welcome here!
Thank you all again.

05/26/2011 18:09

@nitpicker, to answer your question, about why anyone should care. Methinks...

Folks are still donating to Palin's PAC. They have the right to truth. To know that the money they are donating is going to a woman who faked a pregnancy to entice them for their votes and for their money, i.e., political and monetary gains. Not to mention those monies that were collected to help pay for Palin's legal fees for all those ethics complaints that were filed against her.

Anyway, that's why I think it's important. Truth in soliciting....

05/26/2011 18:15

no matter whether one believe's Palin's story in her own words or is a die-hard Trig Truther, any thinking person will come away with a picture of a candidate unfit for office. She either exhibited abysmal judgement relative to the survival of a beloved child, or is a bald-faced liar about her key qualification for office. Do you want either type of person as your president?

Like others I have my doubts about whether the truth will be revealed. Too many GOP and media leaders would be shown to be complicit or fooled. The party would be laughingstock for a generation. The MSM would lose their shred of credibility.

05/26/2011 18:26

One more interesting thing. In the Bailey book, he quotes an e-mail from Sarah saying "no more security _ it's a flippin waste of time!"
So she wanted to discontinue the eyes of security personnel the day before she announced her 'pregnancy'. Hmmmmm.

05/26/2011 18:56

CBJ has stayed as quiet as she can, and her comment that "Sarah didn't ask permission to fly" is undoubtedly completely true. "It didn't seem unreasonable for her to fly" also struck me as being fully truthful. Sarah wasn't pregnant, so why ask permission and why would it be unreasonable? It looks to me like CBJ has tried to be as honest and truthful as she possibly can without revealing anything confidential

@ivyfree.See, I have a huge problem with this though. Much of ow that SarahaThe rest of the world does not know that Palin was Not pregnant. So, for a physician to state that it is "not unreasonable for her to fly" with preamture rupture of memebranes in a high risk pregnancy is ERally irresponsible and bad medicine. What if more women try this based on Sarah's stated actions and CBJs statements? I will never be able to reconcile this in my mind.

05/26/2011 19:07

Maybe it's just me, but I have a thing against batshit crazy psychomuffins ruling my country. I've always been like this..since was a kid :)

And really, putting a pillow in your panties and callng it Tri-g is batshit crazy psychomuffin stuff!!

05/26/2011 20:34

Brad, Have you seen any of the Youtube videos where people take a picture of themselves every day for years? They are really cool. The other day after reading about the Sarah Palin pregnancy I was thinking about these vids. surely there must exist tonnes of the same vids, but ones that are taken every day showing a pregnancy. I'm just too lazy to go find them all. It seems to me though that for you guys who are trying to push this story they would be good to use. ...if I'm right that a load exist that is.

...OK I put a small bit of work in. I have found a few:


here's a good multi angle one:




There seem to be a gazillion. They are good to post accompanying Palin pregnancy blog posts.

05/26/2011 20:44

@nitpicker, you asked why anyone should care, even if Palin did fake the pregnancy.

It matters because she has held up Trig as PROOF of her prolife credentials, to bolster her standing among the base.

For comparison, try to imagine if McCain had made up his war stories about being a POW during the Vietnam war. Those stories were an important part of mccain's image. Imagine if they were false. The press would have a field day.

Why are the press holding Palin to a different, lower standard than other politicians?

05/27/2011 06:43

Frank is staunchly in the "Sarah gave birth to Trig" camp. he sincerely believes she did. I am SOOOOOO curious as to what exactly he witnessed in the hospital that morning.

1. Trig (triggybear) looks like a newborn in April and a one month old in May

Who the hell gave birth in April? I know thats not the questioning we're asking,nor is it a question the public needs to know, but it's still an interesting thought.

05/27/2011 07:09

@WTH "1. Trig (triggybear) looks like a newborn in April and a one month old in May."

I see it the other way around: a one-month old in April (with grandparents) and a newborn two weeks or so later in May (in the Palin house).

How to explain the whole story is a mystery to me! But I think the truth must be uncovered. This is a woman who has one way or another lied repeatedly about this matter for years now. She has used this child to raise funds and sympathy for herself. And she thinks she should be elected president?

05/27/2011 09:17

Regarding Sarah's potential run for the presidency, I recommend watching Lawrence O'Donnell's analysis of how Sarah is not really planning to run for the presidency, but is only flirting with it in order to enhance her celebrity and reality TV queen status. O'Donnell points out that FOX severed its relationship with genuine candidates (such as Gingrich) but not with pretend candidates (Huckabee and Palin). It's good analysis (IMHO).

There's another reason that this is worth watching (May 26) if you can: there's a clip showing Sarah and Greta, in which Sarah keeps talking about the "fire in her belly" as an indication that she will run. O'Donnell believes that it's a fake fire in the belly. And many of us here believe that Sarah has a fake-item-in-the-belly issue already...


Do watch it and enjoy!

05/27/2011 10:20

to Beaglemom, I was not referencing the baby held by Sally picture asI dont think that baby looks like Trig. however, kitchen baby does look like him.

who knows. maybe it was the camera angle that made the Sally/trig baby look like that. or the lighting. the babies do look similar.

Northeast Elizabeth
05/27/2011 10:32

Conclusive. Absolutely. Enough to make a citizen's arrest of Sarah -- and detain her indefinitely without trial. Indeed, speculation about fuzzy, oddly-angled photographs should be enough to make this a death penalty case.

Northeast Elizabeth
05/27/2011 10:42

<i>But it's another to think of a future president strapping on foam and lying through such details</i>

Does Obama's lying bother you at all?

(1) He says he's a Christian, although he's quite obviously an atheist.
(2) He lied about his support for torture--we still support it through rendition.
(3) He lied about closing Gitmo.
(4) He lied about virtually every aspect of his college and law school experience and most certainly will never show the records.
(5) He claims he believes that marriage "is between a man and a woman" (got videotape of this statement if you dispute it).
(6) Lied about writing "Dreams from my Father."

Sure, you're just "asking questions." Why not ask some about our President, rather than someone who may well never run for that office?

05/27/2011 11:02

Northeast Elizabeth:

You are an ass.

How dare you purport to know our PRESIDENT'S heart? He has been open about his faith, has said the cornerstone of his life is the knowledge that God sent His only begotten son to die for him. How dare you call his sincere and frequent proclamations of faith "atheism"? You do not now nor will you EVER know what is in President Obama's heart.

And have you ever considered that rather than "lying" about something, he made a genuine statement of his desire and intention...but then once in office, he realized the republicans had left him far more of a BIG FREAKING MESS than he was aware of?

I suppose YOU'VE never changed your mind even once about anything, EVER. Because according to you, that's a LIE.

I suppose you think if you keep parroting that lame bullshit about President Obama's educational history, you think people will actually buy it?

You realize you sound certifiably insane, right?

Nobody can ascertain that your Quitter Queen even graduated. Why don't you ask some QUESTIONS about that?

05/27/2011 11:44

Dear Liza, we know as much about Obama as a person as we know about Palin as a person. When is everyone going to stop with the double standard?

05/27/2011 11:46

Why do Sarah's defenders never defend her on the merits of any argument? They just go for the Obama attack, as though whatever Obama does/doesn't do has any bearing on the issue of SARAH PALIN FAKING HER PREGNANCY WITH TRIG!

05/27/2011 12:09

In response to @WTH "Frank is staunchly in the "Sarah gave birth to Trig" camp. he sincerely believes she did. I am SOOOOOO curious as to what exactly he witnessed in the hospital that morning."

There was an article on mudflats and the San Francisco Chronicle where co-author Ken Morris describes how the book was focused on Frank's story as it relates to seeing the devolution of his ideal of Sarah Palin: ""There were so many more shocking revelations that Frank wasn't comfortable putting in,so we didn't. He wanted to tell the story about what was wrong as opposed to things about affairs and legitimacies and diet pills. Yes, he wants people to know what kind of person Sarah Palin is like, because that is important," Morris said.

This statement -- in particular, "legitimacies" PLURAL-- tells me that not all of the beans have been spilled in Blind Allegiance.

05/27/2011 12:56

NorEast Elizabeth, Thank you for reading and commenting. I'm not sure I can answer you to your satisfaction most simply because I am not blogging about President Obama.

But I am curious about one thing you said. And that is about his academic record. If no one in the general public has seen it, then how can we know he lied about it? I just don't see someone getting into Harvard Law if they didn't make the grade at Columbia?

And while I wish I could assure you that I saw Mr. Obama while we were at Columbia, it was a big school with a busy campus. We might have been in some lecture halls at the same time, but I don't remember him from my smaller classes. So I can't help you there.

But I'm glad you've joined our conversation. Dissenters are always welcome here. Thank you again, Laura.

05/27/2011 13:24

NE Elizabeth - How did he lie about his college history? He certainly went to those schools. Who cares if he shows his school records? No one demanded that any other president showed their school records. Besides that, if you want him to release his records I would love to see SP records from 4 or 5 schools to get her BA (which I don't think anyone has ever verified that she even got that degree).

He is an atheist? You have got to be kidding me. No atheist would say prayers or go to church (unless they are hiding it from their spouse). I am an atheist and I couldn't say a prayer anymore than I could win the Olympics.

He can't change his mind about marriage? Personally I don't think he would do anything about that anyway so who cares?

If you demand perfection from him then I suggest you expect that from every president not just this one.

Carry on..........

05/27/2011 13:32

If Bailey wanted to dish about Sarah's pregnancy, there are and were plenty of willing buyers. He's chosen not to sell this story--either because he doesn't really know it or he doesn't think it's his story to tell.

I read his book. Bailey was aware of efforts to boost Palin's national profile in press about the VP choices. But he learned that Palin was McCain's choice like the rest us--from the media. Palin told him Bristol was pregnant in July 2008 but not about her VP interview in Aug.

One interesting tidbit from the book: Bailey says Palin asked him in early 2006 "What do you think it would be like to have a pregnant governor in the governor's mansion in Juneau?" He asks the rhetorical question "Could she have calculated the public relations advantages of having a child while governor?"

05/27/2011 14:01


Thanks for that tidbit about a pregnant governor. She ran for governor as a pro-life candidate. So the idea came months before she even won the election. Calculating to become a VP pick, she needed a gimmick because her record was poor.

And it could explain Brestol's my space comment about being a mother of a duck. After all, birth control pills can add weight gain.


05/27/2011 14:08

Sarah told Frank Bristol was pregnant in Aug. She spent all summer trying to adopt the baby so BRistol could continue to live free.

It's pointless to dissect myspace comments. They're one sided conversations that could mean or reference anything under the sun.

05/27/2011 14:11

To Karen, in a facebook message, Frank told me he is sure Sarah had Trig. Thats all I was saying about that. Dunn has said he spoke to people who say the same thing. He has also said others say the opposite. There's really nothing we can do without more evidence.

05/27/2011 14:18

But what could illegitimacies mean? It is common knowledge Track was conceived before marriage. Thats not shocking nor is it scandalous. There are no other children. Since Frank believes Trig is Sarah's, illegitimacies cant be referencing Trig, unless he believes Trig is only Sarahs.

ooo, maybe he means the RIchter/Bitney problems that caused Todd to freak out (best friend)

Deb Richter once shot down the notion that Sarah and her ex had an affair (when people were confusing Brad H and Scott) so that takes care of that.

I dont put much stock in Jeanne's statement. Even the craziest story wouldnt dent Sarah. Shes teflon. Shes worthless as a pres candidate but because there's so many lies about her out there, everything will sound crazy.

Stick to political matters.

Northeast Elizabeth
05/27/2011 14:33

Yep, he's an atheist! He admitted growing up as one. And as all you atheists know, someone doesn't just accept Jesus Christ as his lord and savior in his mid-20s like Obama did. Believe me, he doesn't believe in the Resurrection or any of that stuff. Men rising from the dead isn't "scientific", is it?

You are certainly naive if you don't believe that atheists "fake it" to run for public office. In fact, Obama admitted he joined Rev. Wright's church out of a desire to enter Chicago's political circles, not actual religious belief. And remember: he now (conveniently) claims he didn't remember a THING that Rev. Wright said. So he wasn't listening to whatever hogwash was being spouted.

As to his academic record, he was transfer student Columbia who was there just two years and he did not graduate with any honors. Harvard would never accepted someone with a record like that, and Obama has openly admitted that his grades didn't qualify him for Harvard. And despite his pretense at being a "Constitutional scholar", he has NO legal writing to speak of other than a pathetic "case note" -- basically a mindless recitation of the facts of a judicial decision that any first year law student could do.

So, you HONESTLY want to know how Obama got into Harvard? This is how "President Christianity" did it. He was recommended by Khalid al-Mansour, black MUSLIM and a black nationalist. Don't believe me? Watch this videotaped interview of Percy Sutton, the man who served the longest time as Manhattan Borough President and was a rich and prominent businessman:


Please don't bother trying to have a conversation with me until you've watched that entire interview. I won't respond to you. And if you do watch it, make sure you directly address that allegation I've made about Obama's education being recommended by a black Muslim. His education was financed by that man, too.

05/27/2011 14:46

@Kaleigh, I wouldn't too much into Ken Morris's comments. I think he was setting expectations that Bailey was attempting to find a high road.

Bailey's book also mentions the rumors about her oldest son's paternity. When Palin was running for Republican primary, it was a rumor in small circles. She sent out a mass email to supporters telling them the rumor was false--which only spread the rumor further.

I hope we can all stay focused on Palin's actions and words--things she chose to do and say. Let's not get distracted by tangents and off-target comments.

05/27/2011 15:20

Other interesting factoids from the Book:

- Palin was worried about leaks and someone accessing her yahoo acct. She tried to smoke out the leaker by planting a rumor about her aide's pregnancy. He doesn't give a date for this test run.

- Palin told her team by email on 3/3 about her pregnancy. She planned to keep it secret but a conservative radio host called Palin's spokeswoman the next day. This, allegedly, is what drove Palin to announce her pregnancy to the press on 3/5.

Some notable topics NOT discussed:
- Any concerns her staff had about her travel schedule so late in pregnancy
- Her RGA trip, speech, or the Wild Ride
- The hiring of Rosanne Hughes shortly after the pregnancy announcement. Hughes had prior experience as National Press Secretary for two lower 48 politicians with very strong anti-abortion records. Hughes eventually took on responsibility for all of Palin's external press communications. Bailey covers staff comings-and-goings in much detail; I was surprised there was ZERO mention of this new hire.

CA Guy
05/27/2011 15:24

Elizabeth, have you checked under your bed? Go, do it now. And take the shotgun. No, I'm serious. I'll wait 'til you get back.

Dum-ty, dum-ty, la, la, la. Oh, there you are.

So, what did you find? Hmm. A big scary black man? Wow. Jimmy Hoffa !! And osama bin laden !! You've got a busy, busy dust ruffle.

Now Elizabeth, let's be serious. The above is called satirical humor and draws attention to your paranoid delusions.

How do we know you are a delusional paranoid? Well, we can only figure that out by reading your words (jibberish) and your apparent need to spout those words (jibberish) in a crowded class room.

In the old days, we usually saw this coming from sadly disoriented people wandering the streets aimlessly, not from people at computers with some command of a keyboard. It is a strange new world. So my congratulations on that.

If the host of this blog and others do not respond, well... we're all at a party on planet earth.

05/27/2011 15:28

The "now she wants me to be a mother duck to that baby" post, reportedly made by Bristol in summer of 2007, got me thinking.

We have some friends who married in their 40s and wanted a child. They ended up doing IVF.

Problem was, only a few of resulting embryos were free of Down Syndrome and other abnormalities.

After numerous attempts, they finally got pregnant using one of the "normal" embryos.

It was a difficult pregnancy that ended prematurely at 35 weeks. The baby, despite good L/S ratios prior to delivery (indicative of lung maturity),still required intubation and ventilation for a few days in the NICU. Baby's doing well now, though still very small a year and half later.

Now, suppose someone actively wanted a Down Syndrome baby? Suppose that someone didn't actually want to carry the baby herself, but got someone close to her to act as a surrogate for the DS embryo -- someone who would be "a mother duck" and hatch that baby?

The baby would then have two mothers. One mother would have donated the eggs for IVF and another would have carried and birthed the baby.

A plan like this carries many risks and uncertainties. Many genetically abnormal fetuses, such as DS fetuses, are miscarried, even when carried by young healthy moms -- so it would be a long shot that one try would be enough.

Having a surrogate pregnancy "take" under the best of circumstances is often difficult.

But suppose bloggers or reporters later started asking for DNA proof of the (non-birth) mom's relationship to the child. The DNA match would be there.

Just my thoughts about a possible, though admittedly highly improbable, scenario.

05/27/2011 16:27

@Northeast Elizabeth - People are reading this blog because they're interested in the questions about Sarah Palin's last pregnancy. It has nothing to do with Pres. Obama and many readers and commenters aren't Obama supporters or even liberals.

I feel deeply sad that you don't know anyone who had a born again experience and became a Christian later in life. It's even more troubling that you don't believe Jesus has the power to change an atheist's heart and that you don't understand that science doesn't preclude faith in God. It is, after all, the study of God's creation.

05/27/2011 16:54

Last comment on Bailey book: His final breaking point with Palin seems to be when she disappoints the anti-abortion community:

- Given two choices for an open AK Supreme Court, Palin chooses the judge that the pro-life community vehemently opposes. He speculates that the Palins believe the judge assisted in Palin's sister's custody hearing. (AK court denied the judge was involved.)

- At the last minute, Palin cancels an appearance at a fund-raiser for a ballot initiative for a parental notification law in Aug 09. He speculates that she is in CA working her book for a rushed printing before Christmas.

05/27/2011 18:23

NE Elizabeth - perhaps you don't understand. We are talking about SARAH PALIN not the president.

I am sure you can find many other sites that you can discuss everything and anything about the president.

You are hi-jacking the thread which wastes our time.

05/27/2011 18:32

Northeast Elizabeth said, "Please don't bother trying to have a conversation with me until you've watched that entire interview."

Better idea, y'all. Please don't bother trying to have a conversation with her, PERIOD. She is way, way off topic.

05/27/2011 20:53

curiouser, I'm sad (offended even) that Northeast Elizabeth thinks anyone who isn't a Christian isn't worthwhile. We are all God's children, and Americans can be of any faith or no faith at all.

05/27/2011 23:02

Up - I completely agree with you.

05/28/2011 00:00

I just realized that Sarah is wearing the same outfit in the March 27 and April 8/9 photos. She can also be seen with this suit/scarf combo in the video that was shown on the CBC 'wild ride' report and several times on MSNBC, including every time recently that Lawrence O'Donnell has talked about Sarah.

The only difference in the video is that her jacket is buttoned, the scarf is under her collar, and there's a pearl-like necklace around her neck. I believe the video was shot in mid to late March or early April '08 but can't pin it down to her schedule. I've definitely identified the blondes -- COS Mike Tibbles (he resigned May 1 '08)and Budget Director Karen Rehfeld. The other man looks like Asst COS Mike Nizich and the dark-haired woman might be Annette Kreitzer, head of the Dept. of Administration. The video shows Palin without a bump. Dating it wouldn't add much to what we know but might have some impact on MSNBC journalists who would have confidence the video hasn't been altered.



One more thing about the Mar. 27 photo. There's something about her jackets that make her look thick in side views even when they're buttoned. Compare to Dec. 2007 Christmas Open House.


I think Sarah may have started bulking up, first with layers and later with the fake belly, after she was questioned by the two journalists. She may have just stuck out her stomach for them. Her schedule shows she had interviews with Wesley Loy and someone from the AP on March 15.

05/28/2011 02:55

Does anyone know of someone (anyone?) 7 month's pregnant who sat comfortably leaning forward with her legs crossed as evident in the Newsweek video, March 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Y8FKAsxmk

05/28/2011 02:58

another Newsweek video:

05/28/2011 06:42

Thank you Laura & Brad! FYI, There's another picture of Palin in her Mayor's office when she WAS pregnant with Piper that would make a good comparison to the one O'Malley posted. It shows her from the side - clearly pregnant & her back sways in a lot, not straight down like all the other pictures of her. She's also wearing matronly shoes with wide flattish heels. I think that either Patrick or Regina have the picture because I saw it on Palingates. Do any of you remember seeing it or know where it is exactly?

Keep up the great work everyone!

05/28/2011 06:53

Awesome blog.Thanks .

05/28/2011 07:58

Thank you, Haven! Bring your friends along! And others for continuing the conversation with helpful links and more information to digest, thank you!!

A newcomer, named Leona, just posited some solid thoughts to the Neonatologist Part 2 POW! (I just love saying that!) so it might be worth taking a look. I had never thought that about the oxygen before, but I think her theories, while discussed widely, are valid and possibly close to the mark.

And since we aren't discussing other politicians here, yes, agreed, let's not get hijacked off the topic of this odd - possibly true - but very odd pregnancy story. As a doctor recently said to me, "It's all very fishy and you're right to look into it."

He's right: None of it adds up.

Brad Scharlott
05/28/2011 08:11

So give me your thoughts on this. If Palin is wearing a big pregnancy belly in the 3.27.08 pic above, why would she go with the square pillow (or cushion) at a later date? She must have been making some calculations about who would see what, and when. So, for example, she wore the big belly on 3.27 in her own conference room, in a meeting with some state senators. There was a press photographer there, and at least one pic of her sitting at that meeting appeared in a newsletter (Hollis French's). Did she not think that someday the inconsistencies over time might come to light?

05/28/2011 10:05

To Brad: from what others have said, a big pregnancy belly is not very comfortable. So that's reason number one for not wearing it.

But with Palin, vanity is also important. The 3.27 picture is not very flattering, is it? Makes her back look fat, as some have remarked - doesn't fit with her "tight abs" remark.

Most people (who seem to know more on this subject than I) have opined that there seem to be two empathy bellies, and that the latter one from April 13 is higher quality. Maybe something happened to the first one (from March 27) - especially if it was cheap, perhaps it fell apart?

Just some ideas. I enjoy speculation!

05/28/2011 14:05

What if Sarah was actually pregnant, had an early abortion, then had to fake a pregnancy later out of guilt? Or, had an extremely premature baby, which was in the hospital 2 or 3 months, then when ready to be "born" was brought to Sarah later? Both scenarios would require her to wear an empathy belly. Are either of these probable, do you think?

Brad Scharlott
05/28/2011 15:22

@Speculation: She have to be crazy to do that. So, yeah, it's possible. But not very likely, I'd wager.

05/28/2011 18:33

tl;dr comments

just wanted to say im glad someones asking the hard questions like why did sarah palin fake a baby thats clearly her daughters
keep up the good work!!

05/29/2011 00:26

Sarah added a new element to her speech about Trig, one that she would repeat several times, when she was in Waco, Tx on Sept. 14 '10. "How long could I go without telling anybody I was pregnant? And I made it 7 months! (audience gasp) (inaudible) But here in Alaska, though, remember it’s so doggone cold you’re just puttin’ on more and more layers."

I wonder if this wasn't a hint that she did the reverse. Instead of camouflaging a baby bump with clothing, she used layers and layers to fake a bump for the week or so before she donned the pregnancy belly. Might there have been a down vest or a bulky sweater under her suit jacket? I know I've seen other photos of her from March where her arms also looked bulky.

Alternatively, her 'layers' story may have been foreshadowing what we were to witness with Bristol on DWTS which began Sept. 20. Waco was Sarah's first speech after Bristol was cast on DWTS.

05/29/2011 10:03

Curiouser - that particular Waco speech drives me crazy because she clearly states she tried to hide it, which completely contradicts her Elan Frank video comment that she "didn't try to hide it."

Original Lee
05/29/2011 22:42

Related to these photos, I was thinking about the photos of the day Palin first took her allegedly newborn son Trig to the governor's office. IIRC, she was wearing a fitted (looks like wool to me) dark suit, perfect hair, and perfect makeup. Recently on the game show "Minute to Win It," the contestant, Heather Santora-Barker, was a woman who said she was 2.5 months postpartum (IIRC) and showed off how great she looked. She was beautifully made up, had perfect hair, and was wearing a very flattering top, but in the shots of her in profile, you could see her totally not-flat belly under her leggings. Maybe some useful photographic comparisons could be made between this contestant and Sarah? Unfortunately, I don't have a computer that can handle anything except bare basics cut-and-paste, but maybe one of the other commenters who is good at this stuff could?

Here is the URL to the first part of the show, which I think has some of the best shots, because there are also some segments of her from over a year before, which was before she was pregnant.


05/30/2011 06:19

Brad, I have to disagree in that I think she is NOT wearing the large empathy belly in the 3/27 shot. A lot of what looks like "bulk" in the 3/27 photo appears to be the jacket. Note how much the "Gusty" belly really protrudes, instead.

Sarah also wore the "Gusty" belly at the RGA event. It's quite prominent.

Sarah was aware that she was going to need to look bigger right before the scheduled "birth" and so she acquired the new belly for use just during the last week or so of "pregnancy", switching over from the more rectangular belly sometime between April 9th and April 13th.

Secondly, the picture you are using of Sarah at the sink (the third photo over) is itself distorted: it's from a video clip with the wrong aspect ratio.

I strongly suggest you swap that image out, because it looks like you might have narrowed it to make Sarah look more slender than she truly appeared.

You can see the correct aspect ratio here (at about 4:24): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-BSzQvDAj8&feature=related

That frame is still a good choice in terms of showing how flat she was, though.

Look at her getting up from behind the desk at 3:31. The stairwell scene at 5:55 also shows a pretty straight-draping scarf.

Finally, I would definitely try to get source video from news people if possible. Yes, the video screen grabs we are using here are blurry, but that's because:

a.) they are low-resolution per force, being put up on YouTube (and before YT had an HD option)

b.) they are copies, and copies of copies. Something does get lost in the conversions.

Look at the words "FOX NEWS EXCLUSIVE". Those should be crisp in something taken directly off the air, and the original video should be even higher-resolution still.

c.) —and this is important— I think in some cases the video clips of Sarah could have been INTENTIONALLY darkened, and possibly blurred as well. FOX *knows* Palin wasn't pregnant. I have doubts that Elan Frank is that crappy of a filmmaker, and FOX bought all his footage. (The scene I have in mind is the one of her popping up out of the chair on April 9th: it's improbably murky-looking to me.)

Of course, we're not going to get Frank's footage, but it may well have been shot in HD.

FOX "News" went all-HD on May 1, 2008.

Comments are closed.