One of the things I found fascinating when researching my spiral of silence paper was that there is no compelling evidence that Tripp was born to Bristol and Levi in late December of 2008, as reported. The first dated images of Tripp come from the Feb. 16 interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox. Here is a screenshot from that:


The only prior images of Tripp I am aware of are a few undated pictures seemingly taken by the Palins and shown in that interview or posted at a site for family pictures, or both. Here is one of those pictures, which you just featured in a post, Laura: 


So photographic evidence does not help establish a date of birth.

Also noteworthy is this composite of three photos of Bristol taken at the Iron Dog competition on Feb. 8, 2009, and originally shown by Gryphen:


Here is what Gryphen wrote at the time concerning the fact that Bristol’s belly looked somewhat large, perhaps a post-partum effect, even six weeks after the alleged delivery:

"… I did some research and found that post partum bellies come in all shapes and sizes. And that it is conceivable that this is how Bristol's stomach still looks after giving birth only 6 weeks ago. However I also found that it was even more likely to be that size if the birth was more recent or if it was not the woman's first baby." [Italics added.]

So what’s your take, Laura? Does Bristol look six weeks post-partum? Or might the birth have been more recent?

LN: I don’t want to muddy the waters here, but if I had no idea what you were talking about and I saw this photo of a total stranger for the first time, I would say she is pregnant. Ha! So, then let’s say she is post-partum. And I have no way to tell if this is recent or six weeks later. I just have no idea how she fit into jeans. Period. As usual, nothing about these women and their before and after shots makes any sense.

BS: Again, there is no compelling evidence that Tripp was born in December of 2008. The “announcement,” such as it was, came from a great-aunt in Washington state who had not actually seen the baby, and who told People magazine about the birth. Sarah Palin’s office refused to comment on the alleged birth until People had published the information – thus giving Palin an "out" if the date was later shown to be wrong, as she could say she was relying on the magazine.

The AP tried to confirm the birth, but the Mat-Su hospital would not comment, nor would the grandparents, Chuck and Sallie Heath, even though Chuck was the one who sent the information to the great-aunt in the first place.

LN:  Why the shell game? Especially for a baby whose birth is the reason why Bristol could not have theoretically given birth to Trig. One would think that the date of his birth was critical to their narrative.

BS:  Well, maybe the baby was born later than Dec. 27, as Gryphen’s comment above suggests. How much later? Who knows? But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the baby was born about Jan. 27, 2009, one month later than the reported date of birth, and see how the available evidence squares with that.

Let’s begin by counting backwards. If the baby was born in late January, that means he was likely conceived in late April.

In that case, this photo from August 24, where Bristol, in a loose-fitting top, shows no apparent baby bump nor enlarged bosom, seems to make good sense, as she would only be about 4 months pregnant:


What doesn’t make sense, however, is this picture from the Republican National Convention 8 to 10 days later:


LN: Obviously, her bust did not explode in size in less than two weeks – and the baby bump suddenly became apparent. What happened? 

BS: I have a theory about that. To make that theory clear, we need to start with the following news photo of Sarah, published on March 14, about a week after she declared she was 7 months pregnant, showing her with a flat belly that simply cannot belong to a middle-aged mother of four at that stage of pregnancy. On August 28, the same day McCain named her as his VP choice, a post appeared at the Daily Kos site and then quickly spread across the Internet accusing Palin of faking the birth of Trig, and the post included this picture:


My guess is that when Steve Schmidt, the head of McCain’s re-election team, first saw the photo, he nearly shat himself, because it made clear that McCain’s apparently un-vetted VP running mate almost certainly had faked Trig’s birth.

LN: That’s a career-killer, all the way around.

BS:  Right. So, I’m guessing a highly charged meeting took place a day or so later, with Schmitt, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and her press secretary Bill McAllister (at least) attending. Palin presumably fessed up about the hoax, explaining that she claimed to be Trig’s mother to cover for Bristol.

Schmitt and McCain knew it would be suicide for the campaign to either throw Palin off the ticket or acknowledge the hoax. But two things must have given them hope they could bluff their way through. First, someone (presumably McAllister) allegedly had the foresight to stage a few pictures of Palin looking very pregnant (almost certainly while wearing a fake pregnancy belly) in April. And Palin revealed to them that Bristol was again pregnant. And again, my supposition is that Bristol was only about four months pregnant at the RNC.

If I am right about that, it follows that the McCain team then devised one of the most daring campaign ploys in the history of American politics. They decided to exaggerate and announce that Bristol was five months pregnant and therefore could not possibly be Trig’s mother if Trig was born in April, as Sarah Palin claimed – and thus, the logic went, Sarah must be the mother.

Of course, this would work only if the press corps was so gullible they would not figure out that if there had been a hoax, Trig very possibly was not born in April. But sadly the press corps in this country have often proven themselves quite gullible, and the Trig affair was no exception.

LN: And of course, they were dealing with sacrosanct information:  medical information. No way to get anyone to go on the record about that stuff.

BS: So the plan was set, and the April photos of big-belly Sarah were posted to Flickr on August 31 by an untraceable person – they would soon be shown to reporters as proof of Sarah’s pregnancy. The next day, Bristol was thrown under the bus as her pregnancy was  announced to the world. And the lap dog press – not to be confused with the mythical watchdog press – said to Sarah, “Tell us anything you like and we’ll accept it as truth, no matter how preposterous,” instead of “Show us Trig’s birth certificate” or “Why would a sane women wait 20 hours after her water broke to go to a hospital?”

But what could the McCain team do to make Bristol look demonstrably pregnant?Bristol probably did not bring maternity clothes to the RNC and she could not go shopping unnoticed. My guess is Meghan McCain, John’s daughter, gave Bristol one of her dresses. Of course the voluptuous Meghan is much larger in the bosom than Bristol. Here is a comparison:


Apparently the way they filled out the top of the borrowed dress was to put something like a small pillow over Bristol’s chest, accounting for the very odd shape of her bosom at the RNC. They seemingly put some padding around her belly as well.

So does this theory sound plausible, Laura?

LN: It does. It sounds as plausible as anything else. Whatever the explanation, Bristol’s bust line at the RNC will, and should, go down in history as the strangest, most awful presentation of a young woman on the public stage ever.  No matter what the story, her mother should feel shame every time she sees one of those photos. Every single time. 

BS: After the RNC, very few pictures of Bristol appeared in 2008. Here is screen capture from the Keith Olbermann/MSNBC show  of Oct. 14:


To my eye, Bristol looks closer to 6 months pregnant here than 7 (especially if we assume it is her second pregnancy), which supports a late April conception date and the idea she was only 4 months pregnant at the RNC – but of course pregnant women can vary a great deal in appearance. For comparison, here is a picture of Demi Moore in the seventh month of her second pregnancy:


So what is the truth relating to Tripp’s date of birth? If forced to bet, I’d wager either he was born after Dec. 27 or his birth was induced at least a few weeks early on Dec. 27. In the later case, the press would have been kept away to prevent them from learning of the induction, because only a full-term birth in December would support the story told by the McCain team at the RNC.

But stop and think, Laura – this is the second Palin baby born within a year for which no official information is available. Why did the Palins find it necessary to blow smoke into the eyes of the press and public for both of these births? Why have we been forced to speculate like this in our effort to find the truth?

LN: Especially since we’ve already said that this birth should have been shouted from the tree tops. It was the proof, the only proof, of what they had claimed.

You know, I want to add one more thing here. In that Greta interview, there comes a point when Bristol’s own baby is brought in, and then a babysitter brings in Trig. For a fleeting moment, Bristol looks at Trig and there is such sadness in her face. I nearly fell over the first time I saw it. As I recall, Trig was very hypotonic, meaning low muscle tone, and seemingly low functioning at that time. I didn’t see a sister thinking, Oh, he’s so cute. He must have just woken up.  I saw a young woman looking at her own child with the agony of someone keeping a deep secret and someone who has had to hand over that child. If it’s true, I can’t imagine the kind of cognitive dissonance required to survive in that household. It was a brief moment, but it was a form of “proof” that I’ve never forgotten.

Thank you again, Brad Scharlott, for taking the time to talk with us about this. And thanks to reader Molly for sending a great collection of photos. 



Cindy H.
07/06/2011 12:10

Does Bristol's own book give a birth date for Tripp?
I'm new to the site and am thrilled with all the new information. Thank you all!

07/06/2011 12:26

The problem with analyzing baby bumps and baby sizes is that we all see different things. Personally, I look at the Irondog photos and see a slouching girl whose sweatshirt is sticking out as zippered sweatshirts frequently do. Conversely, when I look at the October Walmart photo of Bristol, I see a woman who is nearly 9 months pregnant, whose baby has already dropped.

That said, I will never understand the blue sweatshirt summer photo of Bristol with her mom and sisters, unless it has been photoshopped--do we know who gave that photo to the press?

Also impossible to explain is the video of Bristol and her family going to church after the Wasilla fire, in December 2008. In that video, Bristol sees the news cameras and literally RUNS across the ice. This is supposed to be shortly before Tripp's birth, yet she does not look pregnant and moves like no heavily pregnant woman ever could.

I, too, remember watching Bristol reach out to Trig in that video with Greta. The memory of the look on that girl's face is the only thing that enables me to keep a spark of sympathy alive for her.

Yet here's another weird observation to throw into the pot: I also remember watching Bristol hold "Tripp" in that video, and interact with him, and thinking, "She's acting like she's never held him before, like he isn't even her own child."

I mention this only because I was out of the country in August-September 2008 when the whole "Trig isn't Sarah's child" rumor burst and them quickly disappeared. By the time I got back and watched some news clips of Sarah Palin, all hint of that rumor was gone and I heard nothing about it (until October when someone mentioned it to me! That's how effectively the story was buried.) Yet as I watched the videos of Sarah with Trig, I found myself struck by the strange dynamic of her interaction with him--I thought, "I've never seen a mother hold her own baby or look at him like that; it's as if he isn't even hers." So, remembering that experience, I'm more inclined to give credence to my belief that the baby Bristol is holding in the Greta video is borrowed.

Why was he borrowed? Because the real Tripp was smaller? Much larger? All I know is these people think they can get away with whatever lie they care to tell. Because the sad fact is, they do get away with the most ridiculous, implausible falsehoods, over and over again.

07/06/2011 12:30

That picture of piper and the baby is way off, she was only 7 at that time and the baby she is holding looks like it weighs about three pounds.

07/06/2011 12:35

Every time I look at those Bristol/RNC photos, I cringe. I'm a fat slob, but there is no way I would go out of the house looking like that, much less be seen on national television. I imagine that goes x100 for a teenager.

I'm amazed that no one thought she looked incoherently lumpy.

07/06/2011 12:45

I too felt that Bristol holding "Tripp" in that interview did not feel like a mother holding her real child. I really felt as though Tripp was a doll (he was so inert) or a borrowed baby just for the interview.

The most compelling part of that interview to me (watch it with the sound off) is the way Bristol looks at Sarah when she stages her intrusion into the scene - Bristol's eyes/face convey a wariness of her mother. Watch it and tell me if you agree.

07/06/2011 12:49

I agree with you Daisydem. And Anonfornow, I'm so glad to know that someone else saw what I saw in that fleeting moment when she looked at Trig. You expressed that perfectly.

And Lidia, I know, with all the primping and fussing that went on with Sarah's hair and outfit, and dressing the baby in those shoes and so on and so forth, no one noticed the pillows in Bristol's dress? That in and of itself is a metaphor for the entire family situation.

Cracklin' Charlie
07/06/2011 12:53

Brad and Laura,

Compare the size of the baby that Piper is holding to the size of the baby Bristol is holding in the Greta interview. The baby in the Greta interview is MUCH larger than Piper's. He is at least 6 months old in the Greta interview, if not 8 months. Piper is wearing short sleeves, in Alaska in December? I don't think so.

I think all the photos of Bristol in this post show Bristol post-partum.

Someone commented on an earlier post that Bristol's chest was padded at the RNC to prevent leakage of her milk that would be brought out by holding her "brother" Trig. Makes sense to me. But the only way that milk would leak out is if she were nursing her brother (not sure that is physically possible), or Tripp had already been born, and she was nursing him. I am going with the second possibility.

I am starting to think that the 3 generation photo is one of the few photos that shows an infant (3-9 month) Tripp. He possibly looks from 2-3 months old in that picture. I think it is possible that the photos of Sarah holding a baby in her office that were from Baileys book, might be infant (3-9 mos) shots of Tripp. But other than that, I am not sure there are very many photos of the 2-9 month old Tripp. If he was born before the RNC, McCain's scrubbers probably made them all disappear.

And I would like to say again that I really do not think there have ever been more than two babies. I just don't think there is any way that Sarah would provide ANY level of care to a child that she doesn't have to; they don't even have pets. And as she doesn't seem to pay much attention to her own children 1-4, using stand-in or rent-a-baby just doe not seem like something she would do.

Laura, your last paragraph is very telling for me. I feel so sorry for this child (Bristol). I just cannot believe someone would treat their own child this way. And for Sarah to rob the two boys of their rightful mother, who is able and willing to give them the love they need and deserve, to further her own ambitions. is truly evil. After seeing the most recent pictures of the boys, I do feel better that they do seem to be growing up with, and will at least have, each other.

07/06/2011 13:09

You know when you say Palin it reminds me of liar. Even if she produced a birth certificate I would question it because they have the power to fake anything.

07/06/2011 13:23

Lovely post. You journalists and historians write so simply and clearly. Brad S, this theory is very persuasive.

However, from what I know about Palins, I suspect it must be far messier. To your objective prose, I must toss in my reaction to the Greta interview and Bristol's new face. I too remember that uneasy feeling when the two babies seemed to be sprung on Bristol, as if she hadn't agreed to their being on camera, and that Sarah tricked her.

And when I see photos of Bristol's new face, I can't help but feel that she has altered her true self to become physically what her mother has demanded from her. A puppet.

Just my gut.

07/06/2011 13:24

Daisydem: Wary is a good word for her expression. Clearly, neither Bristol or Greta expected Sarah. I get the same impression when Trig arrives with the babysitter. Bristol doesn't seem to expect it and seems very uncertain about how to behave.

Sarah makes it clear she didn't know about the interview in advance. I suspect she was worried that Bristol and "the other grandma" (Sherry Johnston?) were going to spill the beans. I think she intruded and later sent Trig in to remind Bristol of something -- not to say too much??

I think it's very odd that Sarah walked in holding Tripp, but sent another person in with Trig. Why would she hold and cuddle her grandchild and not her child?

07/06/2011 13:24

So do we think Meghan McCain knows? She won't speak out while her father is still in office - but he's not a young man and might retire.

07/06/2011 13:32

Bristol does look over-pregnant in the black dress at the convention. In looking for other photos from the event I came across photos of Bristol when McCain met Levi at the airport (the same day as Sarah's speech):

Does Bristol look less pregnant in these photos and particularly less busty than later on that day?

07/06/2011 13:44

I agree with pretty much everything you have said. You literally took the words out of my mouth. I remain unconvinced that the baby that was presented as Tripp on the Greta show was in fact Tripp. There was something "off" about the way she handled him. I felt they were meeting for the first time.

I have often wondered if Bristol was ever pregnant with Tripp. But Tripp is here and he is the image of Bristol and Chuck Heath.

07/06/2011 13:54

I agree with Brad's scenario(s). Like the imagery of Schmidt et al planning this. I believe that baby is the real Tripp probably born a couple to few weeks after 12/27/08. BTW, there is time line confusion for that date regarding where Levi was: up on the north slope or home for the delivery. One or two sources for that.

One thing that grabbed me was from the Todd interview in GQ (I think) where Bristol walks into the house and Todd asks her how the OB check up went. She apparently/reportedly casually and comfortably states that she is one cm dilated. My thought was/is that a teenager in a first pregnancy would be pretty worried about that and not casual about an upcoming labor... unless this was her second pregnancy.

07/06/2011 13:56

Cracklin' Charlie - Don't be thrown off by Piper's short sleeves. She was sleeveless for the Dec. 2007 Governor's Christmas Open House.

For the Dec. 2008 Open House, she wore short sleeves and silver sandals/thongs. The link I had for this photo is no longer working.

But here's another of her sleeveless at the Alaska 50 Year Gala help on Jan 2, 2009. She looks the same in this photo as she does the one holding Tripp except her has was curled for the gala.

07/06/2011 14:00

The last sentence in my earlier comment is a mess. This is how it should read:

But here's another of her sleeveless at the Alaska 50 Year Gala on Jan 2, 2009. She looks the same in this photo as she does the one holding Tripp except her hair was curled for the gala.

07/06/2011 14:21

I thought I'd seen all the videos and pics by now but haven't seen Tripp's introduction on van Susternen's show. I searched for a link to no avail, anyone have a helpful link? Thx

07/06/2011 14:26

Here is a link for the GVS show.

07/06/2011 14:31

We must remember that the $palin mantra is 'all lies, all the time', and work from there. Assume NOTHING she says is the truth, and we have a start.

Brad has come up with new and interesting information from the time of his first draft. I am so glad he and Laura joined the truth seekers.

I think the reason no one else has taken this on is that it is SOOOO unbelievable that a VP candidate would go to such extremes. They don't know the Wasilla Grifters. In addition there was probably extreme political/BIG money pressure to bury the story.

The biggest giveaway that we are on the right track is $palin's silence and lack of legal threatening. Taking us to court would mean disclosure... something she/they cannot allow.

07/06/2011 14:34

This link may be better.

molly malone
07/06/2011 14:37

Many H's that does not compute. If Sarah had a baby bump in August, her staff would not have been shocked at her announcement in March. Pregnancies follow a natural progression, you know. Now stop it.

07/06/2011 14:54

WHYYYY: Are you joking? My guess is most teens don't care one whit about Sarah Palin or her faked pregnancy. Please provide proof that "more and more teens are joining team Palin, including some of Sadie's former BEST friends."

My guess is even if such people do exist, their numbers are very small. IF that's true, it's very easy to explain. When you have a group of girls and a controversy, they feel compelled to take sides. "Team Palin," as you say, has a lot of influence.

Ferry Fey
07/06/2011 15:01

The advantage of claiming a 12/27 birth is you get to claim it as a deduction for the entire year.

I'd still like to see verifiable proof that that date as shown in Tripp's custody papers comes from a certified birth certificate that the court inspected.

07/06/2011 15:02

Thanks for revisiting the Irondog postpartum photo. It is one reason I believe Bristol did actually give birth to Tripp but did so later than Dec. 2008.

As for the RNC gray dress, the visible bra lines are consistent with Bristol's wearing the empathy suit that has both padded bra and belly. This would be to look 5 mos. rather than 4 mos. along. Her boobs are too big to fit in the bra and her flesh is pushed back and up, i.e., sofa bolster.

Yes, Sarah did that to her own daughter to further her own agenda. Pathetic.

molly malone
07/06/2011 15:06

Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign strategist, is quoted as saying that Palin's book, Going Rogue, was 100% fiction. Even allowing for some hyperbole, that's a pretty damning statement.

As for Bristol's dress at the convention, I seriously doubt she picked it out herself. At that stage of the game everything is carefully coordinated and tightly choreographed; the dress was deliberately chosen to emphasize Bristol's "pregnancy", as were her plumped up breasts.

As for Tripp--I have no idea when he was born or who his birth mother is. What I have learned from all this, however, is that it is a whole lot easier to fake a pregnancy than fake a non-pregnancy.

07/06/2011 15:07

I remember that Mercede "confirmed" Tripp's birth in December of 08, on her blog. I just went back now to try to find her comments but wasn't able to. She was complaining about Bristol's attitude toward her and said she'd gotten a call saying that the baby was born and she could see him if she came to the hospital right the, and said she went to the hospital and got to see Bristol and the baby but after a minute she was told to leave. I remember she said she was told to leave in just a minute after she got there.

It made me wonder if Bristol had a friend who'd had a baby and was helping her with a "practical joke"- you know, you hide in the bathroom and I'll get into bed and pretend I've had the baby, hahahaha!

Either that, or Mercede, whom I have never considered as innocent as some people have, is complicit- which wouldn't surprise me as her mother was in bags of trouble at the time and she might have been hoping that she'd persuade Sarah to use influence.

molly malone
07/06/2011 15:09

@ Many H's.

Oops. My apologies for reading that wrong. Sorry I got carried away there.

Ferry Fey
07/06/2011 15:11

Trig looks like Sarah? When I was younger I looked exactly like my grandmother did at that age.

lilly lily
07/06/2011 15:15

Was at a surgeons office. Way back during the campaign, in 2008 I mentioned the witch hunter from Kenya tape to him, and he thought it was crazy, that no one would do that. He couldn't believe it, too far out. I shrugged and let it go.

This time he asked what I was doing this past year, and I brought up that I was spending time trying to get rid of Sarah Palin. (since we have discussed her in the past.)

surgeon "But she isn't running is she?"

then he said. "And she made a lot of money didn't she?"

me. "Yes, millions." (Is this how people judge a persons value?)

then he asked "Why don't you like her?"

Me. "because she is very stupid and very dangerous."

Him." What do you think of the debt ceiling?"

Me. "I don't know. I'll let them hash it out."

Him. "What do you think of Obama?"

Me. "Mixed feelings, but he is better than McCain and Palin."

Him. "Who do you like in politics?"

Me. "NO ONE. Not Governor Christie here in New Jersey. I'm waiting for someone decent to appear."

And that is the problem. There is no one truly worth getting excited about. The politicians are mostly duds.

Also people like this very intelligent surgeon are very busy earning a living. He probably doesn't give a damn about Sarah Palin one way or another. Makeing conversation. He asks me questions, I answer truthfully.

He probably thinks I'm a nut.

07/06/2011 15:16

If Steve Schmitt knew that Sarah had faked the pregnancy, why would he continue to keep silent? He hasn't hesitated to comment on Palin's behavior during the campaign. Do you think that he would do so to protect Bristol, or just to keep ammunition back, or to protect McCain from accusations of poor judgment (too late!)? Or all of the above? HIPAA does not apply to Schmitt.

If Schmitt knows, and he's working for Romney, he might just be holding it back for future use- I've always thought that at least some 2008 campaign staffers knew the truth but weren't going to talk about it unless they needed to, to keep Sarah from the candidacy. That might be our biggest guarantee that Sarah won't really run: Schmitt might talk.

When Bristol said Sarah knew whether she was running, it might be that Sarah has decided against running but wants to keep the option open so she can milk her followers for money.

lilly lily
07/06/2011 15:19

He did comment that Palin is a very polorizing figure. And while I waited for a few moments before my appointment in the waiting room, I saw todays newspaper that has a large article about this. People either are overly enthusiastic, idiotically so, or in reaction there are people like ourselves who counterbalance the zealots.

Very little in between.

07/06/2011 15:27

There was an early blog (I forgot the name) which had a professional analyzing the stuffed photo of Bristol at the RNC. With lightening and some other things, he showed how it was stuffed. It was about then that the blog was suddenly shut down and the site was wiped clean. There certainly is something about this picture which touches a nerve.

Did anyone take screen shots of that material?

07/06/2011 15:27

Here is the Greta video from the Fox News site where Tripp is brought in. Starting at about 4:15 his face is visible and he does look like Tripp with the smaller chin.

lilly lily
07/06/2011 15:31

Steve Schmidt probably felt he said enough. And he was damning.

And they were waiting for her to self destruct as they fortold, having seen for themselves that she is an incompetant and irrational person.

Everyone covers for her. I'm sure there have been a few major meltdowns.

07/06/2011 15:36

One more thing about the interview between Bristol and GVS; I think Sarah DID know about the interview in advance, in fact, I think the interview was her idea. Not for one minute then, or now, do I believe Bristol called GVS out of the blue and said she would do an interview and introduce Tripp. There had been no pictures of the baby, or of Bristol; no official announcement of the birth. Since the world knew about this pregnancy and it was indeed high profile, don't you think that is suspect. On the blogs and in the media, people were asking: Has Bristol Palin had her baby yet? Where is the baby? etc. Then the "big interview" was announced and much was made of that it was Bristol's idea. I think it was Sarah's idea, and Sarah's arrangement. I think though that it was supposed to be only Bristol and GVS and that Sarah "surprised" them with her intrusive presence, handing over the baby to Bristol, and taking over the dialogue. Benevolent sabotage? Was her arrival before or after Bristol admitted that abstinence was not practical or realistic, whatever she said (I have not watched it today - I remember all this from having seen it in 2009, so my memory of it may be faulty to some degree, but I will never forget the expressions on Bristol's face. I think Bristol was unsure about what was happening and I think Greta was also.

07/06/2011 15:43

Thx for the working link Molly. When I did a search, I found several but the video wouldn't play, all had the Fox logo. Your link to YouTube is much appreciated, I never think to go there first. Thx again.

Wow, nothing like big momma hornin' in. This interview was very telling about the family dynamic, I can see that the Paylins would want this little tidbit to go away. Mrs P doesn't trust anyone, not even her children.

07/06/2011 16:06

Excellent! Thanks Laura and Brad!

The October 14 photo does not work for me.

I agree with Pam, in that photo of Piper holding a baby, that baby has a very small head and looks much less than five pounds to me. So small, too small.

One photo is missing, that photo dated July 19, 2008, by Alaska Report, of screechy's daughter standing outside at the fair wearing a brown jacket zipped up with her hands in her pockets. That photo did not reflect a nursing mother or a pregnant teenager to me.

Less than six weeks later, that daughter walked out on the national stage for the first time wearing a blanket draped over her. Underneath that blanket, that daughter did not look pregnant or like a nursing mother to me. But the next time she walked out on the national stage, she was not wearing that blanket. Instead, she was wearing that grey dress stuffed as you have shown above. Horribly stuffed. So, if that daughter was pregnant, I don't believe she was as far along as announced by the McCain camp. So they had to know Trig was not the biological baby of screechy.

That daughter did not look pregnant in July or while wearing that blanket on stage the first of September. No doubt, she could have been three months pregnant, but not far enough along to deliver a seven plus pound baby on December 27, less than four months later.

I have thought about her being induced to fit screechy's timeline. But I don't think it would have happened in December. And I think that photo of her at Walmart looked like she was beginning her sixth month, up too high. And that's the only photo that I have seen where she actually looked pregnant to me. But I have also wondered if that was just another fake belly prop. Too many shape shifters in that family.

In the photos taken at the Irondog race, the last photo in that series, the daughter doesn't look pregnant to me.

I have no answers. But I would like to know who allowed screechy to stay on the national stage after learning screechy faked her pregnancy.

Thanks, Laura and Brad!

07/06/2011 16:30

Laura - Bristol may have been wearing maternity jeans. The designer brands are very deceptive. There was a buzz last July/August when, shortly after breaking off the engagement to Levi, Bristol was photographed wearing a Paige jeans style that came in regular and maternity.

07/06/2011 16:31

Those in the Republican party that knew/know about the hoax, and despise Palin, are probably indebted to protecting someone else. I'm thinking McCain and his people. Unless they knew it was fake and... and this is further to the 'spiral of silence':

Maybe Palin needed to use CBJ to make things appear as if they deserved more secrecy than they actually did, so there would be very little questioning, even and especially if everyone in her circle suspected she was faking the pregnancy. A doctor specializing in child sexual abuse would carry a lot of weight, and result in closed mouths and knowing glances (also might explain all of these rumours of rape we keep hearing from Palin about her daughters, and now Bristol about her own virginity).

Might also shut the masses up, too. "If she faked a pregnancy, it must have been for some pretty messed-up reason... and who wants to go there?".
If she faked it to cover for someone, under the guise of an abuse (that may never actually have occurred), that would explain the high privacy aspect that a doctor specializing in sexual abuse could provide. To me, CBJ wouldn't have kept quiet about the hoax for any other reason than if she believed she was protecting a child.

Something seems to have kept people in the know awfully quiet so far, and that would be my guess. They all probably think abuse was probably involved, and Sarah did the best she could, considering the circumstances. So, they all keep their mouths shut and don't ask any questions.

One more thing: Levi's face in that photo from the RNC! He's obviously never seen those boobs before! Nice juxtaposing with Meghan McCain.
What a blast it must've been, watching them shit themselves over stuffing Bristol, so she'd look appropriately pregnant for the timeline they gave.

07/06/2011 16:50

Alright. Two things: A) Can anyone check the Alaska Fund for the year 2008 that all Alaska residents get and see if Tripp is there? I believe, if he was born in December, he would have qualified for the $$.

B) If Bri$tol gave birth to Tripp *later* than Dec 27, then that baby that she held in that February interview is even BIGGER than I assumed before. I thought the catatonic baby in those Carhartts was at least 3-4 months old. If she gave birth in January, then AGAIN they switched babies. Remember, they did not show his face, just his totally stiff body - as if it was some doll, but probably it was simply a totally drugged baby, that they had borrowed and drugged so it would not move around too much and thus reveal that it was actually way older...

Conscious at last!
07/06/2011 16:55

@ voiceinthewind-

Thank you for that July- August - September comparison. You make an excellent point that had slipped my mind. We need to look more closely at the photos of BP (and the whole Palin clan)in Ohio(?) when McCain first announced her as his VP pick-- just before the convention.

There is something absolutely "not right" about BP's pregnancy with Tripp. I am quite sure that it was not as the Palins tell it-- BUT, I am not sure if:

Tripp was born earlier than 12/27/08
Tripp was born later than 12/27/08
Tripp was born to a woman other than Bristol Palin.

Regarding Steve Schmidt and other McCain Staffers (Nicole Wallace ?): I am not a Republican, but I know that these are intelligent and high functioning people.
They can think on their feet and they know how to spin a story. I bet they were able to detect the fake pregnancy charade early on. That is, they were able to look around and sense the family dynamic. They were not intimidated by Palin and did not have to play the game that some Alaskans did of pretending to believe the story. Once they realized the truth, they scrambled into "cover-up mode." That's what they get paid to do.

seriously disturbed
07/06/2011 17:00

Here's a thought. When one adopts, the agency typically would notify the adopting parents after the birth that "hey we have a baby for you"

That would explain the march announcement that only like 3 people and family knew beforehand, that would explain why trig looked older. But what I simply do not get is WHY was April 18 picked? Why would a date be picked when she was scheduled to be out of town? This is the only reason I somewhat think trig was born, full term, on april 18.

Sarahs "pg" wouldve made him preterm but sarahs pg didn't exist as we assume.


07/06/2011 17:20

I think Brad and Laura's discussion raises many interesting insights / questions etc. But here's where i can't follow---i don't believe SP would ever confess to the hoax. I think the McCain crew (the campaign professionals, not McCain himself) possibly suspected it when the rumors quickly surfaced, but they didn't have to "know" for sure--they had a rumor to kill, no matter what. i can imagine them pressuring Bristol into stuffing herself to appear further along her pregnancy, without actually anyone articulating the suspicion of the hoax-- a "polite fiction" that allows all of the campaign professionals deniability that they knew about the hoax. And it worked. The rumor was killed for awhile. They don't have to acknowledge anything more than a rumor. And i always thought "they doth protest too much" when the evidence of Trig's birth would have been so easy to produce. Except it wasn't.

Second part--Why April 18? I'm working with the theory that Palin did not stage this hoax to cover for Bristol--a secret adoption would have done the same thing--, but to get herself enough publicity and evangelical pro-life credentials to win the VP slot--something we know was already being bandied about, though she was probably a long shot. The Texas speech, and the "arrival" of Trig the next day, allowed her to network --keeping her name out there--while Trig's timely birth gave her some exciting headlines. i'd be happy to shown that wasn't the case, as it's such a cynical thought.

07/06/2011 17:27

Permanent fund: Applications must be in by March 31 of the year you want to collect. He might have been on the dole in 2009 if they applied.

07/06/2011 17:28

Dear Laura and Brad: this is more like it! Now I'm going to go seek out some of the videos you and your commenters referred to. Thanks. :-)

07/06/2011 17:33

Speaking of the Irondog race reminds me of another photography slight of hand SP pulled off. I remember during this last race people were commenting on the fact the she never showed up for the race. Then suddenly a picture of her giving Todd a big kiss for luck showed up. I don't remember where I read it, but somebody pointed out that every year they change the color of the contestant's helmets, and the picture 'proving' SP was standing by her man was from the year before. So using pictures to hide the truth isn't exactly a new concept for her.

07/06/2011 17:57

Sorry to be a pain, but can someone please post the link to the Part 3 of the Bristol/Greta Feb 2009 interview and note the time where Trig is brought in? I cannot find this part of the interview online anywhere! The link for the Part 3 at Fox's website goes to a completely different interview with Sarah/Greta. Any help is appreciated greatly!!! Thanks!!!

eva marie
07/06/2011 18:03

Jeanette, the blog you are referring to is Audrey's Palin's Deceptions. Patrick and Kathleen from Political Gates were working with Audrey. It is interesting that she was just uncovering this story when she stopped blogging but all of her posts are still there.

eva marie
07/06/2011 18:05


This was discussed on Palingates when the custody case was made public, if I remember correctly Tripp's birth is stated as Dec 27, 2008 in court records. I think Patrick had a downloaded copy of it.

eva marie
07/06/2011 18:08


I forgot to copy the link to Palin's Deceptions.

Brad Scharlott
07/06/2011 18:13

Bob: I agree everything might have been tacitly acknowledge but not explicitly stated. For example, McCain et al might have said, just produce the birth certificate, and after she adamantly said she would not, everyone would have got the picture real quick.

But surely among themselves the campaign operatives had to speak openly about the hoax because it became their job to contain it. So yeah, a polite fiction for the sake of deniability could have been employed when speaking to Palin.

07/06/2011 18:20

Bob - I agree that the McCain group may not have known. They probably did whatever they could to avoid knowing the full story: 'We've got a problem Sarah. Don't say anything except how we're going to stop it."

Sarah had used the rumor that Bristol was pregnant to scare away questions during her 'pregnancy' and she was ready to throw Bristol on the altar again when confronted about the Kos story. I don't think the McCain people knew Bristol was pregnant with Tripp until the confrontation.

Seriously, though, what are the odds that Sarah would have a golden ticket child at just the right time to be a pro-life dream VP candidate and that Bristol's pregnancy would work out so perfectly to cover a hoax?

07/06/2011 18:29

There's a long list of people who had to have known or strongly suspected about the hoax--including the Johnstons, Palin's inner circle when she was Governor, and likely senior McCain campaign staff. The problem i have with conspiracy theories, in general, is that once they reach a large group of co-conspirators, it should have all unraveled. And i wonder about this most of all.

molly Malone
07/06/2011 18:39

I just noticed something about the photo of Bristol in the convention dress. (Probably everybody here already knew this except me, but I'm going to mention it anyway.)

If you follow the top wrinkle angling up from Bristol's left hand, you can see the outline of a horizontal band of some kind. If you look closely at the front and back silhouettes of her dress, you can even make out the ripples caused by the strapping or elastic bandaging or whatever it is.

It wasn't just Bristol's bust that was padded. So was her belly. Now why do you suppose they'd want to do that? Hm...

07/06/2011 19:02

Has anyone collected and studied photos of Willow in late 2007 and through 2008?

07/06/2011 19:26

Brad, I am a little confused about what you are contending. You say that Sarah wasn't pregnant. Who do you think delivered Trig and when? If you think Bristol did on 4/18, then she could not have conceived until at least late May and more likely early June. That puts a due date at end of February or beginning of March. That does not fit with the Greta video.

07/06/2011 19:40

OK, Waaay o/t, but can anyone tell me if wearing black leather knee-hi boots in mid-August is a fashion thing in Alaska?

07/06/2011 19:58

If I were Bristol (at the convention) I would have been mortified to be seen dressed like that. I would have tried to hide - or sit still, out of sight as much as possible. She seems so proud and nonplussed.

I think the same about her in the governor 2007 Christmas photo shoot and also in the McCain family plus Palin family official photo where Bristol eventually handed Trig to Sarah but then is standing with pregnant belly at a side angle rather than straight on like the rest of her family. It is just odd to me.

Bobcat Logic
07/06/2011 20:20

How likely was it that Bristol (or Willow) would have produced the perfect right-to life campaign prop for Sarah -- a Child with DS that she "didn't abort"-- at just the right time?

This was not (just) about family problems, it was a premeditated political Hoax,with family issues happening on the side, as a calculated diversion.

The Hoax was a Dominionist power grab attempt.

Palin's family life is beyond sordid, to be sure, but that is not the main issue here.

It is about power and money, and how Palin (and her handlers) almost achieved it (and it started in 2006.)

Please, everyone, focus on the big picture here!

07/06/2011 20:25

In the two pictures shown of Bristol at the RNC convention, it looks like the dress might have been pinned to her bra. The dress appears to have an Empire waistline with the waist immediately under her bust but given the strain of the material against her belly, I would have expected the raised waistline to be pulling away under her breasts. Instead, it almost looks like it has been pinned.

07/06/2011 20:31

Conscious at last!...I know what you mean. I really don't know if that girl was pregnant during the campaign, but there's a baby. Did the blanket show up before those rumors on the internet?

For all I know, Tripp could have been born on 12/27 in 2007, Trig being his stage name. Of all the photos I have seen of her oldest daughter, the only one I believe showed a pregnancy that could not be faked was the one where that daughter was wearing a green top. But then I wondered if I was seeing the results of birth control pills. Looking at the faces of the other girls in that photo, I believe that photo was taken a couple of months before those September 2007 family photos. And in those photos, the oldest daughter looked five months pregnant, to me, wearing a tight dress, not a maternity dress. One of those photos was released as the official Christmas photo which would imply that daughter could not deliver a baby in December, more like April. Now that's odd. Looking at those family photos, I can't help that my eyes focus of the oldest daughter. She's out in front, turned sideways, and her mother knew her daughter was pregnant when she released those photos. Wonder if that was to deceit a suspecting father, maybe even from Juneau. Or did screechy just find a baby with Tri-G and faked the baby as being her daughter's just in case she got caught? Because when I looked at that photo taken from the music video made in NYC in October, I can't say I saw any progression of a pregnancy. Of course, my eyes go wonky and that photo was not clear to me.

See...I'm so confused. Best reality whodunnit!

But I did not believe that wild ride story and screechy did not look pregnant on 03-14-08, so I do not believe she gave birth to a six plus pound baby less than six weeks later. A hoax.

A hoax for political gain of that GOP VP slot. A political hoax to help the GOP win the election, to keep the WH after eight years of bushie. The stakes were high. All that family drama distracts the hoax; PR consultants have been busy at work.

Cracklin' Charlie
07/06/2011 20:34

@seriously disturbed,

April 18, 2008 was the day Tripp was born. He was going to stand-in as a newborn for Trig who was already 7-8 months old. That is the only explanation for the wild ride.

Cracklin' Charlie
07/06/2011 20:45

Sorry, I forgot to add another point:

What's that old saying? It's not the crime - it's the cover-up.

Well, there could be a lot of both of those things happening here. If crimes have been committed, whose ass would need to be covered? Whose reputation would be most affected by evidence of crimes committed in a cover up operation? I have a idea about who that might be.

Bobcat Logic
07/06/2011 20:46

i want to take this opportunity to commend Floyd M. Orr, whose book I dip into each night like a bag of delicious popcorn. (Just wish it had an index).

Floyd totally gets what is going on here -- the Southern Strategy -- writ large!

This is not quite an actual direct quote from the book, but Orr makes the point several times that "no one would give a rat's ass about the Palinbrats or Levi Johnson except (that some of them) may know where the bodies are buried."

I have to agree.

07/06/2011 20:55

Bobcat - I see your point and agree mightily yet there is Levi lovingly holding an infant who supposedly isn't his.

Katie Taylor
07/06/2011 20:58

Laura, I posted my comment below on the wrong thread. Do you mind if I re-post it here where the discussion is more focused more on the Trig's birth.

After reading most of the material available on the internet on the Babygate matter my theory is that Trigg was in fact born in Anchorage earlier than 4/18 (perhaps prematurely) to someone other than Sarah Palin (probably Bristol) and subsequently transferred to Matsu hospital after being stabilized on or about 4/18. Here he was presented to the public on 4/18 as just having been born. This scenario explains a number of things including:
1) Sarah's slip up in at least one speech on where he was born (Anchorage vs Matsu)
2. Matsu never issued notice of the birth because he wasn't born there
3) Pictures of everyone in the family at Matsu on 4/18 or 4/19 EXCEPT Sarah who would have needed to be shown in a hospital bed
4) Bailey's statement that Bristol couldn't be the mother because he saw her in jeans at Matsu on 4/18
5) Trig's quick discharge from Matsu and Sarah's decision to take him to her office a few days later via car. A ride that would have been more painful for a sore Sarah than Trig I presume.
5) Sarah's wild ride saga from Texas which we all agree could not have happened as stated if she were pregnant without someone noticing her girth. She was merely rushing back so the plan for Trig's introduction to the world could be completed. Sarah is an idiot but even she wouldn't risk her health and that of a baby after beginning the initial phases of the labor process in Texas but decide to return to Wasilla.

I became interested in the Babygate scandal because of Andrew Sullivan's writing on the subject. I'm a flaming liberal but Andrew is my favorite blogger and if he was convinced that Sarah had pulled off a hoax that was good enough for me but as they say "trust but verify". After my research I agree that a hoax was pulled over the American people's eyes.

I would certainly be interested in getting your and your readers thoughts on my theory. I should also send my theory to Andrew to get his impressions.

Mental Health Breakage
07/06/2011 21:05

O/T (but only slightly) ...

Just stumbled on an eHow article called "How to Tell If Someone Is a Sociopath" :

No surprise that it perfectly describes the grisly Mama & her cubs ... I just find it comforting to have my suspicions confirmed every now & then -- especially since the MSM still refuses to state the obvious.

07/06/2011 21:06

Each adult and child who applies for the PFD for the first time has to supply their birth certificate.
Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston and Trig were both on the 2009 list.
The 2009 list is for the 2008 eligible people.

Here'the link...

07/06/2011 21:18

RUkiddingMe: Thank you for providing that picture of Bristol (& family)arriving at airport. That immediately came to mind when reading Brad & Laura's excellent post. Thanks B &L.

No she did not have the humongous boobs & bulging belly when she arrived. I was looking frantically for the picture, but decided to read all comments first and found your comment. Bravo!

As to the dress, I saw Meaghan in an interview (maybe with Rachel) & she said that the Paylins TOOK one of her dresses for Bristol & that no one had asked to borrow it. Her (M) dresses were custom made for her. She also said that SP had her own makeup & hair stylists and the McCains' had their own. The Palin girls had taken over the McCain stylists since mama was being worked on - thus the controversy mentioned in Bristle's book making Meaghan out to be the villain. What a crew of entitled BRATS!

07/06/2011 21:26

PS - Laura, will you please post the picture of Bristol at the airport that RUkiddingMe kindly posted next to the overstuffed Bristol at convention picture? It's very revealing. Thanks so much for all your excellent work! Brad, thank you too! You guys bring additional credibility to the whole Babygate issue.

Only the most devoted Palinbot can doubt the truth, and they probably know it but would never admit it.

07/06/2011 21:43

Focusing on the Big Picture as Bobcat Logic mentions above, consider this: At some point, we are going to have to entertain the idea that the child we know as Trig was "obtained" Palin, Heath, or Johnston played any part in his genetic makeup.

Among the Fundie Dominionist crowd, a suitable Down Syndrome infant would have been quite easy to locate - especially for a cause of this enormous magnitude - one step away from the most powerful job in the world! There are at least three possible or likely enablers: Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, Franklin Graham (he of unlimited airplane availablilty with a base in Alaska), and "Dr." Gina Loudon of St. Louis, Sarah's 'good friend', who has herself profited greatly from having an adopted DS son.

"Ruffles" exists(ed), but has neither "turned into" Tripp nor present-day Trig; the complicated ear surgery on an infant is not medically acceptable or possible, as we've seen various MDs attest to on the blogs.

We're going in circles trying to figure out which baby morphed into which baby, and when. At least consider the strong possibility that round-ear Trig showed up at exactly the most amazingly "right time", but it was not by some misty providence. Sarah was the perfect, highly-groomed stooge, but she couldn't parlay her role into a win for the Fundies because she didn't follow orders, AND, she's an idiot.

07/06/2011 22:04

Last night I was looking at the Docket List for the custody dispute between Bristol and Levi:

It mentioned a "Child Custody Jurisdiction Affidavit" which I tried to find a copy of online. I did find what looks like part of the custody trial records:

On page 9 there is a Child Custody Jurisdiction Affidavit signed by Levi which states Tripp E. Johnston as being born on 12/27/08 in Wasilla, Alaska.

So, if this is NOT true and this is an actual copy of the document does this mean Levi just believes this is when Tripp was born or do you think he might have lied on the affidavit?

07/06/2011 22:06

First, thanks to all the links to the BP/GVS videos. I had never watched them, because I can't stand the voice of GVS. What happened to her, anyway? I thought she occasionally had reasonable commentary before - how did she become such a Palinbot? Was she always so right-wing?

But as for Schmidt and the others who certainly knew - it may be very, very hard to get them to talk. Loyalty is a very big thing in the GOP, and to expose this lie is to break with that particular virtue. Besides, if a GOP campaign is willing to lie about something so absurd, what else are they willing to lie about? (Lots, of things, we know - WMD in Iraq, an economy does better when you don't tax the rich, diet sodas are good for you and John McCain doesn't know what it's like to suffer torture.) For Schmidt to come out and tell the truth is a difficult thing, because it means it is unlikely that any GOP campaign would ever hire him in the future (they punish oath breakers). He might get a position, like Michael Steele has, commentating for MSNBC.

07/06/2011 23:30

I'm not an expert, but I've always understood that some women regain their non pregnancy bodies very quickly (although not over the weekend, unless they're just removing a cushion, thank you Sarah), while some take longer. And so I think it's very hard to judge how post partum Bristol is in some pictures.

I agree it's part of the circumstantial evidence - just not very strong.

The fact that no birth certificates have been released (and yet SP claims Trig's has!) is extremely strong circumstantial evidence. Even if Sarah were the mother, and Todd were not the father, MatSu could have confirmed that she was there, there could have been evidence of a few doctor visits, etc.

It is really just a stupid, stupid lie - and so characteristic of Sarah, who wants Reality to conform to whatever nonsense comes out of her mouth, and amazingly, people are helping her with this instead of sending her to counseling. Say something incorrect about Paul Revere? Get your bots to change the information in Wikipedia, instead of saying you mispoke. Tell people that the government is going to create Death Panels (although she actually promoted the same thing in AK as end-of-life counseling is extremely important). Someone asks you what you read? Claim that's a gotcha question. When people are curious about your 7-month, invisible pregnancy, smirk at the camera and claim to have tight abs.

Does anyone else out there feel as if we're living in the modern day version of The Emperor Has No Clothes?

07/06/2011 23:40


Here is the page for the Alaska Permanent Fund Division Applicant Database:

It contains downloadable files of names of applicants for the PFD from 2009-2011.

I downloaded the 2009 text file and Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston is on the list for the 2009 dividend.

Eligibility for each years dividend is based on residency from the previous year. A baby born during the previous year would qualify for the current year dividend (i.e a baby born in 2008 would qualify for the 2009 dividend).

07/07/2011 03:08

I would like to point out that the scenario detailed here, which has been surmised many times, fits the photographs, and imho fits the ‘facts’ as far as they are known.

Another point that might be mentioned is that there was talk of Bristol and Levi selling the birth-baby pix of Tripp to the yellow press for fantastic sums, but that never materialized, and it is quite out of character, both for Bristol and the media. I think what occurred is that Bristol/Levi/press floated the idea, not quite realizing, at the time, the importance of the precise birth date - Bristol would just have been told that for the RNC conf. making her ‘very pregnant’ in looks and in a ‘5 months’ throwaway remark that it would help quell the ugly rumors about her being Trig’s mother. So she agreed - she didn’t feel she was being thrown under any bus, but that it would make ppl shut up about Trig. You can intuit where I am going...

However, the scenario does not support the Bristol-as-mother-of-Trig, or at the very least, does not exclude others.

1) Bristol would have been sent away because as the oldest daughter in the house she might have noticed something odd, amiss, about her mother’s pregnancy. She might have been too curious - feel the baby kick? - too knowledgeable. Remember, she wanted children herself. (I’m assuming Todd was complicit.)

2) When McCainCo awoke to the hoax (possibly one shouldn’t date it as precisely as in the top post, though the times fit very well), SP ‘confessed’ to the hoax, and either to some other facts, or possibly to nothing at all except the hoax - a private matter. Remember, in my argument, no fraud took place. McCainCo would in that case have dug to find out. Or possibly, she never said anything at all, and McCainCo twigged to it. For their own reasons, they decided to stick with SP.

3) SP would have insisted that she wanted to protect her daughter from the scurrilous gossip whirling around the internet, and McCainCo would have as well, or at at least would have to agree with this stance. And so busts would have been bolstered, dates fudged, birth events kept secret or quiet, etc. Bristol would have gone along, if she wasn’t Trig’s mother, as having many believe she had 2 kids when she only has one isn’t a very comfortable position. To help out her mom, too - people saying her mom hoaxed! This obscuring or slight warping of the truth (again, no fraud took place, only misdirection on details) in such a way as to keep the possibility of a Bristol as mother of Trig open. All those who believe that SP was not preggo or doubted she was could confidently continue to have at hand a simple explanation: she was covering for her daughter, and the questions and ambiguities about Tripp’s birth (date for ex.) stem from the fact that the Palins want to ‘prove’ Trig is not Bristol’s. Therefore, no Tripp BC, no official birth pix, no tiny baby pix, etc. etc. Just as for Trig - oh well, it is a Palin characteristic.

07/07/2011 03:54

Not to confuse things more, but here are some other photos that make no sense at all to me, so I'm putting this out there in case someone can explain them. Photos of the baby born to Amber & Levi on 4/18/08 compared to photos of Tripp as a baby show such a strong resemblance (to me at least). Could they be related? This is one piece of the puzzle that I cannot make sense of. Does anyone know if the photos of the Amber & Levi baby were ever explained or debunked? This has been nagging at me for a long time and I would love to put it to rest.

Brad Scharlott
07/07/2011 04:02

Allie: I wrote:

"They decided to exaggerate and announce that Bristol was five months pregnant and therefore could not possibly be Trig’s mother if Trig was born in April, as Sarah Palin claimed – and thus, the logic went, Sarah must be the mother.

"Of course, this would work only if the press corps was so gullible they would not figure out that if there had been a hoax, Trig very possibly was not born in April. But sadly the press corps in this country have often proven themselves quite gullible, and the Trig affair was no exception."

In other words, I believe Trig was born earlier than April 2008 - February or earlier would work with the scenario above.

07/07/2011 05:41

Laura, you said,

"In that Greta interview, there comes a point when Bristol’s own baby (Tripp) is brought in, and then a babysitter brings in Trig. For a fleeting moment, Bristol looks at Trig and there is such sadness in her face. I nearly fell over the first time I saw it. As I recall, Trig was very hypotonic, meaning low muscle tone, and seemingly low functioning at that time. I didn’t see a sister thinking, Oh, he’s so cute. He must have just woken up. I saw a young woman looking at her own child with the agony of someone keeping a deep secret and someone who has had to hand over that child."
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Could you alternately hypothesize (as I am) that the deep sadness that washed over Bristol's face could have been the result of a different scenario? Perhaps Bristol was recalling the pain of whatever happened to Ruffles (whom, let's say, she birthed very prematurely in February '08), as she was watching the more acceptable "Prop Trig" being brought in?

I am VERY concerned that people have been unequivocally accepting of the notion that Bristol birthed the child we now know as Trig. This has been a large bone of contention amongst certain bloggers, but I think the topic should be left open for conjecture. In Bailey's book photos, we see two different infant Trigs. One was Ruffles ("Trig 1", per "shitfire"), and one was his more acceptable/politically advantageous Down Syndrome replacement.

There was a reason that Bristol continually fawned over her new son Tripp, extolling how "perfect" he was, almost by way of comparison. Her Ruffles was taken from her in one way or another - unfortunately, we don't know how, why, or when.

Carrie R
07/07/2011 05:50

Re: The Youtube video of Greta/Bristol

In the beginning three photos of Tripp are flashed for the camera. In the third, he looks JUST LIKE the baby on the airplane Willow is making crossed eyes with! This is one of the photos that was hacked in Palins email account. Bristol said during the trial that she was upset photos of her newborn son were suddenly on the internet. We all thought she had slipped up about Trig. I am starting to wonder about Tripp's birth date. Not whether he was born in Dec or Feb, but way before then.

07/07/2011 06:02

It seems that Sarah's size and shape has always been the focus of Babygate - as it well should be, given the purpose is to prove that she was never pregnant with Trig. What about Bristol? As far as I know, there are no public photos of Bristol between the Sept. 2007 staged Christmas photo shoot and the prom picture with Sadie. (There is an MTV video purportedly shot in October of 2007 with Bristol Palin in the background).
How about a line-up including, but not limited to, the following: Bristol on the boat in summer of 2007, Christmas shoot, Sadie prom, RNC tarmac, RNC, Target, Church fire, Greta, red carpet with Hayden Paniterre (sp), DWTS, NYC last week. Her body sure has fluctuated over the last 3 years!
I think Audrey's Cornerstone posts are the key to Bristol's role.

lilly lily
07/07/2011 07:16

How about Bristol in the audience with Jennifer Lopez with a large bump. Was that over at Palingates or Politicalgates. I think the video was at Palingates.


07/07/2011 07:29

Where did GVS's interview with Bristol take place? I think there was some speculation that it was in a hotel because the Iron Dog (is that right?) was taking place and so they were at that site? I just thought it strange that in other interviews when Greta went to AK, she is walking in the yard with Todd, talking about the snowmobiles, she is in the kitchen, people are moving around, but here they are sitting formally at a table - in other words, Bristol remains seated for the duration, she is wearing black if I remember, and one cannot tell what size she is.

lilly lily
07/07/2011 07:39

I go with Katie Taylors scenario.. Wed July 6th at 2.58. It makes sense from birth in Anchorage to presentation at MatSu, with Frank Bailey seeing Bristol in jeans.

Also the fact that the Palins took one of Meghans empire style custom dresses for Bristol and presented her stuffed up like a Thanksgiving Turkey. The Palins are a brazen lot, and the girls are as twisted as Sarah.

It must have made Bristol proud to be standing up in one of Meghan McCains $1000 custom dresses. She obviously hates Meghan, just as she hates Mercede.

Bristol bringing up the hairdressing scenario of an irate Meghan complaining that their the McCains hairdresser was doing Bristols hair, in her book is nothing new. Levi mentioned it as well.

As far as selling the first of the baby pictures of Tripp for 6 figures, Bristol blames either Mercede or Levi for selling it to the Star for $5,000. She points the finger at Mercede. So what was to stop her from selling her own photos for the 6 figures?

07/07/2011 07:58

As we get wound up in conjecture, I think it's important to occasionally step back and look at what we DO know. In other words, what is known fact, what is conjecture?

1) It's a fact that people in Alaska thought Bristol was pregnant in 2007-2008, before her mother announced her pregnancy. Bristol was taken out of school and sent to live with her aunt during her junior year. The aunt is quoted as saying that Bristol lived with her when she was pregnant (I believe this is in the Trailblazer book?), yet we know she wasn't talking about the Tripp pregnancy because of the timing.

2) We know that in April of 2008, rumors once again swirled around Alaska that Bristol was pregnant. Sarah's emails show Sarah asking her staff to address these rumors. Also in April, Willow's boyfriend was going around "telling anyone who'll listen" that Bristol was pregnant. When it was announced at the convention that Bristol was five months pregnant, several Wasilla residents said they were confused because they had thought Bristol must be in her third trimester.

3) Levi has repeatedly displayed great tenderness and love toward Trig. Mercede recently released a picture taken before May 2008 that shows Levi cuddling a baby in Matsu. At the beginning of May, Levi was photographed in the Palin kitchen tenderly cuddling the child known as Trig. At the RNC, Levi tenderly kissed the child in Bristol's arms.

4) It's a fact that the baby we know as Trig has strange ears that are identical to Sarah's very strange ears. This tells us he is related to her in some way, probably either grandson or nephew. He is not some random DS child adopted from strangers.

There are many other "facts" that could be assembled. Looking at photos can be both interesting and instructive, but we have to remember that most were deliberately released and may in fact be deceptive. The problem is, what we think we are seeing is often contradictory, nor does it fit the "facts" as otherwise known.

07/07/2011 08:36

Thank you so much for the kind words, Bobcat Logic! You, Jeff, and a few others here truly have gotten the message. There are layers of subterfuge in not only the Babygate hoax itself, but also too in the way the story has been handled by both the MSM and the blogosphere. I wrote Paradigm Shift to show readers the whole story, one a very large number of people do not want to see. Any neophyte can read the book and comprehend an overview of the entire hoax and the motives behind it. Many people have asked for just such an overview, but relatively few have actually read it. Many of you obviously have great respect for the lamented blogger Bree Palin, but few seem to realize that Bree was behind the scenes in much of the Babygate research produced for the book. It is obvious to me that some people may wonder why this book is never mentioned on the blogs you assume are the official arbiters of truth in the Babygate saga. Perhaps you are missing the fact that this should be one of your most pertinent questions to ask yourself. Who else has been writing openly about the Babygate theories for three years now without once concealing his identity? Thank you, again, Bobcat and Jeff, for opening your minds to The Big Picture.

07/07/2011 08:36

Thank you all for such great comments and intuitive and analytical thinking. You all make me reach to match your skills of observation and interpretation.

Katie, I don't think you're far off at all. And I want to add to someone else's comment that yes, I can see where a baby is released from a Level III NICU and sent to their regional/local hospital to "grow." They would be transported, not carried out by the family. And as Doc and I even pointed out in an earlier post, if a baby goes home from a NICU and has to be readmitted, they are almost never readmitted to the NICU. They go to a step down nursery or pediatric floor. So, perhaps the baby was sent to MatSu for some remaining issues.

If Molly or anyone can put the BOOBS photo side by side with the tarmac (blue satin blouse) photo that would be helpful. I think more than one person requested to see that. Though I think we know that once again, it does not add up!

07/07/2011 08:41

Heidi3, you know that I know that you know what you are talking about. Keep telling it like it is. Maybe someday other readers of the blogs will start listening to you.

07/07/2011 10:50

At the risk of heading down that rabbit hole...
Could the photo of Piper holding Tripp possibly be photoshopped? As others have said, Piper looks very young, and the baby's head looks very small. But also too, looking at the photo, I can't figure out what is holding up the baby's head. It looks to me like Piper's arm continues directly under the baby's neck; a newborn needs support under his head.
I've dismissed the Tripp-born-early scenario because it appears to be contradicted by the photographic evidence. But now I wonder, could that evidence be suspect? (Do we ever get a clear view of the baby's face in the TV interview? I haven't seen one in the clips that I've seen.)

07/07/2011 12:14

I hadn't watched the Greta interview with Bristol before. Man, how totally awkward for Bristol that her mother comes out... she has this very brief flicker of a look of terror, around 1:39, like she knows her momma is gonna take issue with her as soon as the cameras disappear. How completely ODD and asinine that Sarah shows up and interrupts the interview. "I hope I'm not interrupting, but we are going to go on the river and I just had to stop in..." What? How ignorant. She completely foisted herself on this and Bristol must have been totally pissed.

lillly lily
07/07/2011 12:21

Bristol says it is not a problem not having sex. Also with Levi, once she broke her moral code she figured it was O.K. Once SHE broke her moral code? I thought she was taken advantage of while under the influence. How is that her breaking HER moral code.

Double talk. She is very comfortable lying. The girl looks better groomed, though her hair is messy. She folds her legs together, controls her hands unlike her mother, but she remains a skank. Bristol oozes lies. Everything Palin stinks to high heavens.

Why bother interviewing these people? She truly has nothing to say but smiles and lies. The lies drop from her tongue like honey.

Bristol appears very pleased with herself during this interview.

Nauseating stuff.

Murdoch is in the hottest of hot water. About time he was called to account for his misdeeds.

Though he doesn't meddle with the Palins his pet grizzly moms.

The new chin has given Bristol self confidence. And she knows they will be playing very soft ball with her.

Brad Scharlott
07/07/2011 12:23

JK: The screenshot I provide has about the clearest view of the baby's face in the whole GVS interview - that's why I choos it/

07/07/2011 13:12

Reading Floyd's and Heidi3's comments just now reminds me again that SP faked the pregnancy AFTER a baby was actually born. It gets really confusing trying to pinpoint Bristol's earlier pregnancy(ies?) and how it fits with SP's pretend pregnancy. I'm starting to feel like one has very little to do with the other, and that this whole thing was purely devised for Palin's political far-right fundie reasons. And it's getting less confusing for me when I consider that as the root of the hoax.

But I'm even more frustrated with this whole thing after watching Bristol on The View earlier, talking about how the question of the A word never came up with her Tripp pregnancy. Barbara Walters then added that her mother (SP) didn't either, and SHE was expecting a Down Syndrome baby (paraphrasing).

This parroted meme has me more sure that it was all merely an elaborate hoax, not to protect anyone, but to pad Palin's pro-life resume. And that might be as crazy as it gets. Much easier for people to believe she was covering for someone, but again, this is $P we're talking about. She does nothing to protect anyone - not even her kids, as we've seen.
I think she wanted it to LOOK as if she was protecting or helping someone, so that nobody would question it or suspect for a minute that she was only doing it to promote herself and her Dominionist agenda.

Keep closing in, everyone.

07/07/2011 13:19

OK, just watching the rest of the video (have to take that voice in doses...) and just find it so odd that first, once again Sarah is using her kids as a prop or a shield, foisting Tripp in front of the camera, and second, she is standing their outside of the camera shot and the other camera guy has to make his way around to get a good angle while she just stands their babbling her bullhooey.
Laura, you're right -- Nothing makes sense with this woman.

07/07/2011 13:19

I'm more or less with Katie Taylor too. That's why I kept on going about the daylight on the other discussion: in the picture, Keith and Levi are holding Trig, who is a one or two month old very early preemie. This is obvious, because the picture is taken in late spring or early summer.
Tripp is born more or less to schedule, by Bristol on December 27th as stated.

Mercedes couldn't put up a similar picture with Tripp, because there are none. At that point, the drama was too high, and Keith and Levi wouldn't be spending happy time at the Palin house.

A good question could be: why are the Johnstons silent on this (except for Mercedes sending out pictures and cryptic messages)? But that is actually easy to answer. I think everyone could agree at the time that an adult couple with a good income and a nice house are better equipped to care for a child with Downs syndrome. As he grows up, no one changes their minds on that issue.
The same goes for the doctor and other health-care workers involved.

Also, I think the idea that Bristol looks grotesque at the RNC is because she "borrowed" Megan's dress is excellent.

These are really simple explanations, and don't require huge conspiracies. I like that. Also it fits well with Palin as I see her. It's not that she is dangerously criminal. It's that she dangerously gets caught up in wild but cosmetic fibs and can't figure out how to get out of them. If this is true, it would mean she is unfit for government (albeit similar to many other politicians), but it would not mean she was guilty of a major crime.
I must say that some of the accusations in that direction here on the blog make me feel very uneasy.

In many ways the Palin family are simple people. They are not very well educated and they deal with a lot of unnecessary drama in their lives. As I see it, they are not really good at bringing up their kids. Not least because they have difficulty understanding that what is good for Sarah might not be as good for the children. But that doesn't mean they don't care for them. I live in a very mixed neighborhood, and there are many different families with different values. There are families very similar to the Palin family. And there are some who really don't care for their kids. They pretend to, but they just don't know what love is. Maybe they had terrible childhoods themselves.
The children in that type of families look and act completely different from the Palin kids and the Johnston kids. It's an entire different league. And I know that intimately because at times these children stay at my house for days.

We don't have to hate Sarah Palin or her family in order to insist that she is unfit for government. Actually, it ever became important to convince some of Palin's supporters to change their minds, I think hating her would be the worst strategy.
And the same goes for the media. Wild accusations against an obviously un-electable person is just not considered news in the serious media. The interesting story might be "how the media was led to believe Palin was a serious contender" - a meta-media story like prof. Scharlott's original article.
The full exposé from Levi or Bristol would be a big tabloid thing, but see above why that won't happen.

07/07/2011 13:58

Floyd re: "Perhaps you are missing the fact that this should be one of your most pertinent questions to ask yourself. Who else has been writing openly about the Babygate theories for three years now without once concealing his identity?"
Please no more puzzles to solve. Who, s'il vous plait? I am exhausted trying to guess baby weights, motives, timelines, parentage, genetics, etc., etc. I can't unravel the riddle. Please tell us what you mean.

07/07/2011 14:07

FWIW, an acquaintance of mine saw Bristol here in Juneau sometime after 12/27/08 and before 1/22/09. Bristol was carrying what was described to me as a "very, very tiny baby." Sarah and Piper were also along.

I assumed the baby was Tripp, but who knows!

The other jk
07/07/2011 15:13

Is it just me, or does Tripp look itty-bitty, teeny-tiny in that picture with Piper? He was supposedly 7lbs, 4oz when he was born (according to the Palins). That is just a titch below average from what I've read. Yet, to my eyes, he is much, much smaller in the arms of his 8 or 9 year old sister.

What if Tripp was born a few weeks or even a month preterm (naturally or, horrible as it is to imagine, through scheduled induction or c-section).

Who Knows?
07/07/2011 15:15

This video has some close-ups of Tripp - the baby looks like he has the infamous Heath chin.

Bristol's interview with Greta (Tripp @ the 0:30 mark)

Conscious at last!
07/07/2011 15:34

OK, I just looked at the video that Who Knows has linked to for us.

Tripp sure is a beautiful baby. But he simply does not look like an almost two month old baby to me.

WHAT DOES EVERYONE ELSE THINK?? Hey folks - I am a mom, but that's only a few data points-- what do you think?? How old does that little guy look to YOU??

07/07/2011 16:04

@Karen. Floyd means you should buy his book, Paradigm Shift. He has been commenting and blogging and publishing under his own name.

@The other jk. I had a 7 lb. 4 oz. baby. He was long and skinny, so he looked tiny weight-wise. If Tripp was long, his head and torso might look tiny. Babies also drop some weight after they are born. The picture could be after he dropped a few ounces.

@Claire. Would love your acquaintance to talk to Laura about what s/he saw. A tiny baby in Juneau by 1/22 could mean Tripp was born mid-Jan. (I'm surprised Bristol went to Juneau within a few days or even a month of Tripp's birth. Maybe for the State of the State address?)

07/07/2011 16:59

Who Knows? - Thanks for finding that video! I didn't remember there being such good shots of Tripp's face. Bristol remarks that he looks like his father except for the chin which resembles hers. So she had plastic surgery to alter the only facial feature that Tripp inherited from her. Okay.

The other jk
07/07/2011 17:08

Don't I know it, B. My own daughter was 23 inches long. She was over 8.5 lbs. Of course her father and I are well above average height and were both very long at birth.

I still say that baby looks smaller than 7.5 pounds, especially in the arms of an 8 or 9 year old.

07/07/2011 18:29

@ B -Thanks!

No offense to Floyd, I just didn't quite get his statement and it sounded like another riddle. Happens when you are trying to make sense of all this!

Katie Taylor
07/07/2011 18:48

I am anxiously awaiting Joe Mcginnis's book on Palin that will be published on Sept. 21. I follow his Palin Blog. He made a comment directed to Palin that if she had NOT announced her candidacy before 9/21 that she would not be able to and that she knew the reason why this was so. Joe obviously has some BIG scoop that will be so damaging to Palin that it would make a run for president impossible. I do not feel Mcginnis's bombshell is the Trig hoax as he recently admitted that he has now evolved in his thinking and become Trignostic in his thinking on the subject since he completed the book. Of all the critical books on Palin I think his will be more embraced by the main stream media given his standing as a writer. Palin is no longer a threat to the nation as a potential 2012 candidate but folks I have to tell you that Michelle Bachmann is every bit as scary as Palin and what's worst I can see a scenario where she ends up with the nomination. There is no way that Sarah can enter the race at this point and change the dynamic of Bachmann's meteoric rise. What other secret could Mcginnis have dug up that is not related to the baby hoax but every bit as damning to Sarah Palin that would derail her political career? Mcginnis will have done the country a favor if his threat is true and I suspect that it is.

The ongoing conversation here at Laura's blog is the most intelligent I have seen on Palin matters and trust me I have seen a lot.

Cracklin' Charlie
07/07/2011 19:06

other jk,

I am totally with you on this. My daughter weighed 5 lbs, 12 ounces when she was born, and she was not as small as the baby that Piper is holding (Tripp).

And seriously Claire,
If someone saw Bristol with a tiny baby between late December 08 and January 09, it was not the baby in the GVS video. That child was not tiny.

07/07/2011 19:36

Sorry I'm late to the Party :)
Brad & Laura, I don't know if that baby was Tripp or not many of us suspected them (paylins) of giving the kids Bendryl so they won't cry. I just don't know. But I do know court records state Tripp was born Dec 28 2008.
Patrick from Politicalgates had the PDF at Palingates b/c there were so many questions. With the custody/support case they had to post Tripps b-day.
Its out there.
She was supposed to be due on the 22nd. Sherry was busted on the 18th.
Seems like quite a coinkydink to try to keep the Johnston family away on the 22nd???

07/07/2011 19:37

Thank you, Katie. I feel that way about all of you too and I'm delighted that it's going on here.

I love Joe M's writing. I can't wait to read any of it, all of it. And he has good reason to be sharp with his pen, after what she accused him of.

07/07/2011 19:46

I think in the GVS interview Tripp is at least 6 months. His head is too large for a 2-month-old.

*NO* 2-month-old baby has a head that enormous unless they are hydrocephalic!

Conscious at last!
07/07/2011 20:15

@ crystalwolfakacaligrl-

Yes, I remember that someone said the court records stated that Tripp's birth date was 12/28/08. And this may be true. That is, the court records may, in fact, state that. BUT, that doesn't mean this is his true birth date.

Some very heavy hitters were called in by the McCain campaign to participate in a cover up of SP's faked pregnancy. These folks had lots of power and "reach." I believe that they had the ability to supply false information for court records and much, much more. This is part of the explanation of why Sarah Palin's secrets have been protected at high levels-- because some folks in high places have stepped in lots of poop themselves to keep her VP campaign afloat. HA-- all for nought!!

07/08/2011 00:47

To Exp:Nov.05/08 @13:12 -
I'm so glad to hear you're thinking that way. The Fundie (and corporate) elements and their agendas were at the root. Babygate is the outward manifestation of what maneuvering was going on behind the scenes; they wanted their girl Sarah in a high position where national policy could very feasibly have been affected, even as Veep.

But Sarah happened to get really, really lucky (again). All the various pregnancy scenarios were/are so purposely distorted and confusing that it makes it appear that she's a plausible martyr, which we know she's absolutely not! Without the Couric & Gibson interviews and the 'death panel' outrage, the Fundies might just have gotten their way.

Yet, the struggle is FAR from over - witness the media's continuing willful complicity in the coverup.

Note to Laura: Thanks again for providing this fantastic forum. Ideas are flying left and right, and I'm enjoying your contributers and the comments immensely.

Brad Scharlott
07/08/2011 06:50

Yeah, I agree there is a very good chance the baby in the GVS video is not the same baby that Piper is holding. In my first draft of this piece I wrote that. But I decided to err on the side of caution.

But why is there never a clear picture of the baby's face in the interview? That seems by design. The baby was drugged and held back to the camera virtually the whole time. And the ostensible point of the video was to introduce the baby to the world!

It's all smoke and mirrors with the Palins. And of course, the Palins would not hesitate to do a baby swap,

Conscious at last!
07/08/2011 10:30

@ Brad Scharlott

Tripp's face is hard to see in the early part of the GVS interview...but check out the later portion that WhoKnows has linked to above-- there Tripp's face/head is quite clear.

He looks much older than 7 weeks. I agree with KMiller who thinks he looks closer to 6 months.

07/08/2011 16:31

I just made a new account at, and I posted the PDF files there.

The Perfidy of Sarah

Chapter 2. The Wild

07/08/2011 17:48

Brad, that's just what I was thinking. Looking at the baby in the GVS interview, it seems to me the shape of the forehead, and as others have mentioned the size of the head, don't square with other photos, but we never glimpse of the chin, by far the most distinguishing feature of the baby consistently presented as Tripp.

Dis Gusted
07/09/2011 17:22

I never considered that Tripp may have been the child born on 4/18/8 but that makes the most sense yet. He was enormous in the GVS interview and I said so at the time. I know kids - I have 10.

I also suspect Molly is the mother of TriG and that could explain why he resembles Sarah to a degree. Pictures of Molly are often mistaken as Sarah.

IMO more than one child has been stated to be TriG. There are differences in their size, the neck, the hair, the ears, the eyebrows and the mouth. The beautiful picture of TriG and Tripp together show the more animated TriG instead of the less social and awkward one.

Compare that picture to the family portrait on the couch. It always appeared that Tripp was looking off camera at someone else...I suspect THIS Trig caught his attention.

It makes one wonder exactly how many babies are there in the Palin compound?

07/09/2011 19:45

During Sarah Palin's first year as Governor, a poll was taken and 84% of the people felt that Palin was dishonest. Looks about the same percentage as the rest of America. Everyone knows they have been lied to, but they don't exactly know what the truth is. The books by Schmidt and McGinniss will discuss some of the lies we have been told--but Levi knows a lot of the truth and that is why both Sarah and Bristol work their hardest to make him come across as a jerk. He had said repeatedly that he will tell the big secret that the Palins have been hiding--but I doubt it, as they will see that he loses all visitation rights to his son. Levi is playing it smart right now and not criticizing Bristol over the terrible things she says about the father of her baby. The Palins have the money and the power and the fans and Levi needs to write a book that is truthful but not as personal as Bristol's and not whining and putting all the blame on the Palins. The readers aren't dumb--we can read what he means without him coming across as vindictive and petty, like Bristol did in her book. Levi is immature and good looking but not the brightest bulb in the package. The Palins are bullies and the more disgusting things they say about Levi and his family, the more people like Levi. He shouldn't forget this. His side will be believed if he is factual but not looking for sympathy and trying to place all the blame on Bristol or her family.

Jacquelynn F
07/09/2011 22:58

Some picture comparisons for folks…..

Both of the below pics were provided by Palin in “Going Rogue”.

Palin Preg with Track;[/b] exact date unknown but obviously just weeks (or a week) from birth and at full-term:

Palin Post-partum after Piper’s birth; Piper was born March 19, 2001. Easter 2001 was April 15, so in the pic it’s 27 days after Piper was born.

A pictorial progression of Palin’s “pregnancy” with Trig:

Feb 25 (week 28)

Feb 26th (week 28):

March 8th (week 29):

Week 30:

Week 32:

Weeks 30-34

April 13th (week 34):

April 8th (week 34):

April 8th v April 13th (5 days):

April 8th v April 13th (5 days):

5 days later Palin gives birth…..

1 month after Trig’s birth:

1 month after Piper’s birth:

Dis Gusted
08/07/2011 13:11

my theory is Bristol gave birth late 2007 OR Jan. 2008....she gave birth again January 2009 and she gave birth again January 2011.

None of the reported births have the correct birth dates including Tri-G.

The first baby's birth had to be hidden because Levi was barely 16 and Bristol was 15. They were married with Sarah's permission.

Dis Gusted
08/07/2011 13:13

too bad Piper doesn't have her mouth open in the photo of her holding Tripp. She's missing her bottom front teeth which makes her approximately 6 years old. Tripp must be 4 now.

Dis Gusted
08/07/2011 13:39

"Yes, I remember that someone said the court records stated that Tripp's birth date was 12/28/08. And this may be true. That is, the court records may, in fact, state that. BUT, that doesn't mean this is his true birth date."

exactly - also explains why Brie wanted a closed case. Alaska has some surprising laws - such as allowing a baby to have the surname of the father when they are not married. Now, the Palin's drop the Johnston as if it's legal, also, too.


Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Leave a Reply