Babes In Levi's Arms

6/28/2011

Thanks to a faithful reader, we now have Levi side-by-side: tats, facial hair and wedding ring, which I CAN make out on the right photo, all right here. Skin color, curlie-cues...take it away readers. What do you see?

H/T you know who you are!

Brad Scharlott

6/28/2011 11:30:10 am

Careful not to make too much of difference in skin hue. Different lighting can make a huge difference. Even so, Levi seems paler in 2nd pic. The baby looks smaller in 2nd pic.

lftismygame link

6/28/2011 11:30:42 am

Honestly, I don't know what you can read into the skin tones. I think the photo (Old Levi) on the right was taken in different lighting so it appears more pink. It would be good if someone with appropriate skills could adjust one photo or the other so the color balance matches. I do agree that on the left Levi looks much younger.

lftismygame link

6/28/2011 11:31:58 am

Ha ha Brad. Your comment wasn't visible when I made my lighting comment. I think the baby on the right is not only smaller/younger, but has a different nose.

6/28/2011 11:35:53 am

What I see is a young Levi and an older Levi, both picture with a newborn. I'd say that the age difference in Levi is about 9 months to a year. And how that fits into the scheme of things is starting to make my head hurt.

phil

6/28/2011 11:36:46 am

Left photo has blond highlights in his hair

FEDUP!!!

6/28/2011 11:37:31 am

Levi is wearing a ring in BOTH pictures (barely visible in the second one).

DEFINITELY NO tattoo in the green t-shirt one.
Also no bruise on his wrist like in the second one.
Seems quite a bit younger in the first one.
Has fuller face with a bit chubby on the neck in the second one.
I know lighting can be an issue, however, you clearly see that he has a tan line under the bottom of the green t-shirt. None visible in the second one.

momcat1949

6/28/2011 11:43:48 am

He looks like a very young father meeting his newborn son in BOTH PICTURES. Does anybody else know a young man around the age of 17 to 19 who would cuddle an infant NOT RELATED TO HIM?

Things are just getting curiouser and curiouser......

Brad Scharlott

6/28/2011 11:43:52 am

The hat is backwards in first, forward in second.

How long does it take for a tatoo like that to heal completely?

Karen

6/28/2011 11:48:27 am

In the first photo, he is sporting a tan and is thinner than in the second photo (look in the neck/jaw area). Not sure what this means, but: look how the ring is on the finger as if he just put it on. A wedding band rests closer to the palm than the knuckle of the finger. This looks like he isn't used to wearing a ring at all or just slipped it on.

Viola-Alex

6/28/2011 11:48:36 am

My first impression is that the baby in photo 1 is prettier than baby 2. Baby 2 has that worried look of some newborns, while Baby 1 seems more filled out, relaxed.

6/28/2011 11:49:57 am

Levi has a patch (scar, bruise, sunspot) on his left forearm (above the wrist) in the picture on the right that I don't see on his left forearm in the picture on the left. There is a smaller spot on the back of his left hand in both pictures. Also, he looks thinner in the left picture and his beard along the jaw line seems finer (as one would expect in a younger male adolescent). His face is angled similarly in both pictures, but he seems like he has more jowl in the picture on the right.

6/28/2011 11:54:38 am

The baby in the right picture seems more fragile than the baby on the left, although that may be in part because the one on the right isn't all wrapped up and is being held in upright. The one similarity I do see between both pictures is how intent Levi looks - absolutely focused on the baby/babies.

Laura Novak link

6/28/2011 12:22:43 pm

The bruise on the arm in the right photo IS visible on the left. Look at where the blue line of the blanket comes down to his arm. Right there, the bruise is just cresting the top of his arm.

And wedding ring is also visible in the right photo, only just has hard to see (must focus) as that bruise is on the other photo.

Conscious at last!

6/28/2011 12:36:06 pm

Is there a way to find out exactly when Levi had his hair longer with the blonde highlights? The photo of Levi in People Mag, just before the '08 convention shows longer hair, but not blonde. It looks like a school yearbook photo that was supplied to People by the Palins.
If we could get a look at high school photos of Levi, we'd have our answer.

Similarly, (re:previous post) if we could use Piper's short hair (and young looking face) as a guide, we might be able to date that photo of her holding what appears to be the child called Tripp.

6/28/2011 12:37:10 pm

The baby on the right looks smaller and frailer to me, the cheeks do not look as full. And the way Levi is holding the baby seems different. He seems like he is more confident holding the baby on the left, where he seems like he is holding the baby on the right as if it were a very fragile china cup?

rubbernecking

6/28/2011 01:06:38 pm

ABC News has picture here that is captioned as "Levi Johnston from the 2006 Wasilla High yearbook." I'm guessing this is his freshman picture and was taken in fall of 2005:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Politics/story?id=5709929&page=1

There's a hockey photo from his junior year so I assume it was taken in the fall of 2007:

http://www.hometeamsonline.com/teams/default.asp?u=WASILLAWARRIORHOCKEY&t=c&s=hockey&p=profile&div=136250&playerID=62690

I'd probably compare both to the 2nd green shirt photo where Levi is looking forward into the camera.

Ron

6/28/2011 01:09:08 pm

Do you suppose the "bruise" on Levi's left arm is a birthmark? If you look very closely, you can see another spot (birthmark?) on the back of his left hand in the same spot in each photo.

Anonfornow

6/28/2011 01:17:15 pm

I agree Levi looks younger and tanner in the green shirt picture, but the truth is it's so hard to tell since lighting can make a huge difference. In two weeks he could certainly have had a haircut and shave, and (as Mercede says) got the tattoo for his 18th birthday, with the photo taken while it was at it's most pristine. What I don't get is why he keeps so tenderly hugging and kissing his "girlfriend's mother's baby"!

For a long time, I thought Mercede had been kept in the dark; now I've decided she knows the truth, but has been muzzled by the same threats as Levi. The weird-shaped ear, so like Sarah's, tells us this child is related to the Heaths. My gut tells me the child is Bristol's, but the proof is still lacking.

Two more photos that would be interesting to look at are the photos leaked by the poor young man who hacked Sarah's Yahoo account: the picture of Willow sticking out her tongue while holding a very young baby in blue, and the picture of Bristol holding a very young baby on her lap while posing with her siblings in the grass. These pictures have always intrigued me, because that baby does not look like Trig at all. Nor does he look like a DS child. Is it Tripp? A borrowed baby posing as Trig? Something is strange there.

Ottoline

6/28/2011 01:18:26 pm

I thought we (i.e., audrey) had dated the photo on the right. Mercede is there, and the same series has Bristol, and then there's one of Bristol in (the same?) sweats with Mercede on the way to a dance, which we dated based on someone else's photos of both Mercede at the dance in the same dress and the backdrop of the dance vs other photos of the dance. Sorry I'm too weary to look it up, but I think it's on Audrey's site.

My take on the photo on the left: Levi is younger. There are no pix of him when older with the curly hair. It's when he was younger that it's this long and this curly. I haven't found another photo of him with streaked hair, which suggests this is a pre-fame photo. Obviously it's before the photo on the right: the tattoo is not there yet, and we all seem to agree he looks younger. Plus the streaked hair suggests younger. But that baby on the right looks smaller! So it must be two different babies. I would not rule out that it's some friend's baby.

Levi looks v loving and attentive on every photo of him I've seen with a baby, so I don't think we can differentiate based on that. Too subjective, anyway, and proof of nothing.

Deb

6/28/2011 01:19:59 pm

Of course, the lighting can be different in photos so skin tones may be accurate. In this case, Levi's farmer's tan line is seen at bottom of his t-shirt arm.

search4more

6/28/2011 01:36:55 pm

I thought the babies looked a different size so I took the pic into Photoshop and cut the babies out and swapped them over. Now it's important to note that in the left picture he is almost square on to the camera whereas in the right hand picture his body is angled to the camera. So don't draw any great conclusions from this please.

After messing with it I was less sure the ize of the babies was really that different.

Here is a link to the pic I made:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/24/lauranovakblogpostlevip.jpg/

Take a look at it and see what you think. I didn't change the size of anything. What I did was roughly cut them out, rotate them so they were vertical, flip them horizontally (so they would be pointing the right way) and then rotated and positioned them. I didn't do it with great care. A better job could be done of it if someone has the time.

curiouser

6/28/2011 01:57:22 pm

In the sofa photo:
Levi is sitting straight up; head tilted down, neck forward; chin to his left.
In the chair photo:
Levi is reclining; head tilted down; neck straighter, chin centered

I think his double chin in the chair photo is from his position. I tested the theory on myself and it seems to be valid; but, sadly, I'm not the best guinea pig for neck/chin experiments. Anyone else want to try?

Aside from the chin, I think Levi looks the same age/size in both photos.

The baby on the left looks to me like the baby Sally Heath was holding on April 18. I wish we could photoshop a hat and blanket on the other one. I just can't compare them.

KarenJ

6/28/2011 02:25:30 pm

I just lightened the picture on the left, and adjusted the color balance for the picture on the right, and sharpened it.

That helped...

http://bit.ly/motVKT

Mrs Gunka

6/28/2011 02:26:45 pm

The baby on the right is Ruffles. It is taken in Palin's kitchen and that is Mercedes arm around Levi. Look on the shelf behind Mercedes arm and there is a birthday cake. Levi's birthday is May 3rd,the day he said he got the tatoo, I recall. The sleeve ruffle is covering up the ruffled ear but same outfit as in the Ruffles ear pictures. The baby on the left looks like a much younger version of the baby Sally Heath is holding in the hospital. Cheeks are fat, but not as big as "going home from hospital with Sally and Chuck. That picture was taken in the hospital room. Those are not the same baby. One could be late summer or early Fall the other late winter or spring from the tan lines. I'd say Levi looks about a year different in age. Most dark haired babies are born with the dark hair. Light haired babies may get darker hair after a few years. More likely a dark haired baby can have lighter hair around two years. But neither baby has the coloring of the dark haired Trig we now see. Tripp has always been very fair skinned. The baby on the right is very dainty and could be a girl by the delicate facial features. It looks like a preemie a few weeks old. The left baby looks full term and looks more masculine in the facial features. Neither baby has Levi's thick, long lashes. Two different babies, several months apart by Levi's features.

KarenJ

6/28/2011 02:28:58 pm

That bruise that TF and Laura mentioned might be a burn scar. It looks like one to me, anyway.

curiouser

6/28/2011 02:50:33 pm

search4more - Wow! The baby switch is fascinating.

A key before coming to any conclusion is to know whether the photos are to scale (is that the right phrase?). I think they're close but can't tell definitively and don't have tools to do precise measurements. Levi is the constant but in different positions with a lot of foreshortening.

Cracklin' Charlie

6/28/2011 02:51:33 pm

Just a couple of observations:

I think it is important to remember that Levi, in both these photos, is just a teenager. He could be only 16 or 17 years old, not 22 or 24. The years from age 14 to 22 are like dog years, kids go through lots of changes. It has been my experience that sixteen and seventeen year old kids don't really even visit ANYONE in the hospital unless it is something fairly urgent or if their parents make them. And they don't usually hold anyone's newborn babies unless they are being forced to.

The baby that Levi is holding in picture with tattoo is TINY. That is a very small and fragile looking baby, maybe even a premie. Levi looks much less comfortable holding him than the larger baby, and Mercede has placed a reassuring arm on his shoulder and her hand on his hand holding the baby.

Mercede captioned this photo "baby brother". The only guy whose baby brother this could be is Trig's. No one else is qualified for the job.

LTA

6/28/2011 03:14:14 pm

I don't know how to post it here, but you can look it up for yourselves...the 2006-2007 Wasilla High hockey pic of Levi shows him with the curly moptop. AND...if you open it in windows photo viewer and adjust the exposure to make it lighter, you can clearly make out those bleach(?) highlights.

The baby in the photo with Piper has two screaming obvious notes- one, the blanket is the same as the one in the two new (to us) photos of Levi. Two, that baby is the child known as Tripp. He has a distinct face.

New theory:
The child known as Tripp was born to Willow. Bristol takes the fall at RNC. Sarah knows a 17 year old who "made a mistake" and is engaged to be married is miuch more palatable to the GOP than a 14 year old with a baby. So Bristol and Levi have a baby while very young (16?) and then Willow follows suit. Bristol has at least one more baby with someone, somewhere in the mix.

It's crazy...but no more so than the rest of this nutty rollercoaster. Welcome to the Palin Baby Nursery...up is down, black is white, and 2+2 equals purple.

Rationalist

6/28/2011 03:29:59 pm

I'm pretty sure photo evidence from the relevant time period rules out Willow. Big debate at audrey's.

6/28/2011 03:40:57 pm

I'm interested in the tattoo on his left arm in the right pic. Now, I know nothing about tattoos - but does anyone see any sign of it in the left? Or could it be a temporary tattoo? Because if the answer to both questions is NO, then it seems as if we have a real piece of evidence.

Observation: I feel like we're playing the game that I often saw in Highlights for Children - what are the differences between two pictures?

SLQ

6/28/2011 03:54:49 pm

V, that's the $24,000 question. Per Mercede's text to Gryphen, Levi got the tattoo when he turned 18, which would have been May 3, 2008. Mercede previously dated the "Triggybear" photo (the one on the right above) as taken in the Palin kitchen on May 3, 2008. Levi's tattoo is fully visible in photos taken since then (Playgirl, with Tripp, etc.)

So . . . is it possible to get a tattoo in the morning, and have it look perfect that afternoon in the photo with the baby, with no bandage, bleeding, weeping, etc.?

SLQ

6/28/2011 04:04:33 pm

Hey, I was trying to google to see if I could find anything about hospital-issued receiving blankets at Mat-Su Regional, and stumbled across this:

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2010/11/25/valley_life/doc4cee0cc937574082527507.txt

Apparently, a group of very nice ladies knit hats and make receiving blankets for babies born at the hospital. The hat on display looks exactly like the one on the baby on the left.

This doesn't mean much, except that it does look like both Trig and Tripp were born at Mat-Su Regional, or at least were there at some point as babies when the pics were taken (the one of Levi above, and the one of Todd, Willow, Piper and baby in the last post.) Not only is the seating the same, but the blankets and hats appear to be similar. These nice ladies explain the similarities in the blankets and hats.

silver

6/28/2011 04:10:14 pm

In the photo on the right Levi's arms look more developed.

His neck and jaw line are more developed in the picture on the right which seems normal as young men reach their later teens.

The ring looks too big in both photos so the story of him losing it seems truthful.

The baby in the picture on the right looks more curled as if it may have been born early? Almost as if it's still a bit in the fetal position?

Levi looks trustworthy when he holds a newborn as he seems to do it so tenderly.

He's good looking and may have had lots of girlfriends so got more than one pregnant within a year or so.

Phyllis

6/28/2011 04:23:33 pm

SLQ asked,
So . . . is it possible to get a tattoo in the morning, and have it look perfect that afternoon in the photo with the baby, with no bandage, bleeding, weeping, etc.?

All I can say is that I have seen 2 tattoos that were both done within 4 hrs before I saw them. One was a very small Taz and the other was a 5 letter name done in same script as Levi's only the letters were smaller. The Taz was clear with no swelling or redness.The other one had a lot of redness around the letters. Within 2 days the redness had cleared up.

silver

6/28/2011 05:52:06 pm

search4more, that's interesting to view the way you repositioned the babies - good work. Comparing the profiles, the babies seem to have different faces but because one is on more of an angle I can't be certain.

K.M.R

6/28/2011 07:04:03 pm

Good detective work everyone.
The only thing that hasn't been mentioned is that in the kitchen photo Levi has a bruise on his thumb. It's black. His thumb is tucked under the blue blanket in the other photo, so it doesn't really help time wise.

To me, he looks about a year younger in the green shirt picture.
The baby on the right doesn't look like a preemie as does the one on the left.

I will note too, as others have also noted in the past, that Levi seems to have an ingrained tenderness towards babies. It comes through in both pictures and in all that we've seen when he is with a baby. Doesn't help in determining much of anything but that is why I've always liked him.

K.M.R

6/28/2011 07:06:17 pm

oh dear, I said it backwards.
Make that...
The baby on the left doesn't look like a preemie as does the one on the right.

BlueberryT

6/28/2011 07:33:54 pm

The photo comparisons are great; I am somewhat more persuaded after seeing them that these are the same baby and taken within a few days of each other. The tattoo is still perplexing, how there can be no redness.

6/28/2011 07:39:29 pm

@slq & @phyllis: It's possible that Levi got a tattoo "for" his 18th birthday but not exactly on his 18th birthday. So it's possible that it healed by May 3, 2008.

However, after looking at both pictures more closely I see that:

Picture L: No tattoo. If he'd had the tattoo at least part of it would be visible. So, Picture L was taken before Picture R.

Picture L: Levi certainly looks younger than in Picture R. Thinner, more simply more youthful. Also tanned, but this doesn't necessarily indicate anything (except when did the Palins get that tanning bed)?

Picture R: Baby definitely smaller than in Picture L. Which means that it is younger - while Levi is older.

So either someone is traveling backwards in time or Levi has two sons. Or else Picture L is of someone else's baby (whose?).

6/28/2011 08:05:48 pm

Addendum: and of course Picture L is at Mat-Su - why would he go visit a baby to which he was not related?

ginny11 aka ginny

6/28/2011 08:52:52 pm

(I got a disqus account for commenting at blogs/news sites with Disqus that don't allow guest commenting, and my longtime username of ginny was taken...so it's ginny11 from now on!)
BlueberryT, I had come to the same conclusion as you after looking at these photos alot, and seeing search4more's photo baby crop/switch (thanks search4more!). I do not see a tan line at the shirtsleeve in photo 1, I see a shadowing from the sleeve edge. The babies look very close in size, it's just that in photo 1, the baby is bundled up, adding bulk visually. I agree with Laura about the bruises on Levi's left forearm/hand, I see them in both pics. It looks like they are newer/fresher/not as dark/distinct in photo 1, and have become darker in photo 2 (consistent with how bruising gets darker in the days after the injury). I have seen fresh, largish tattoos on the day they were completed, and yes IRL you can see redness around the tat. But in a pic of not-great quality? I don't think you would necessarily be able to make it out. And a new tat would look very crisp, as it looks in photo 2.
After saying all of that: my conclusion is that these photos look like a new father holding his child. Beyond that, I am baffled by the timeline of *when* these 2 sets of photos were taken.

Truth Please

6/28/2011 09:09:02 pm

Levi has curly hair. In Bristol's book, there's one of him with Tripp and Bristol. his hair is longer, like he never got a haircut between RNC and Tripps birth. He also looks very redneck/bad boy, like he does in the above left photo.

comeonpeople

6/28/2011 10:14:23 pm

Jawline younger in the left photo, more fat around jaw in right photo. Other than that, the right photo could be just after a haircut and tattoo. He has scars on his hand which are there in both pics. If not scars and just cuts, they are in both photos. The discoloration spot on hand in right photo is not on left. Don't know what it is but hope it is not dirt and that he washed his hands before picking up baby.
Oversll he looks younger in left photo. Wish we could see his thumbnail. The damage looks old in the right photo so might be fresh if left photo proceeds it.
Oh well.
Who konws except those who know and they are not talking yet.

Leona

6/28/2011 11:35:29 pm

I am trying to look objectively and I see three things:
1. In the photo on the left, there is a fairly new scrape on the back of Levi's left hand, and a smaller red scrape near the base of his left index finger. In the photo on the right, the scrape on the back of Levi's left hand has healed mostly, but is still visible as a reddish area, and the smaller area at the based of the left index finger is still visible.
2. Levi is wearing a wedding ring on his left hand in both pictures.
3. Newborns have a plumpness, a fullness due to fluid that they lose within a few days. The baby on the left has that fullness; the baby on the right appears smaller because it is not a newborn; it is a few days old and has not regained birth weight.

Jeanette 123

6/28/2011 11:47:30 pm

Here are my thoughts with thanks to IM since most of the info from the discussion on that site. I had said some of this earlier.

A commenter said they had contacted Androcrombie and Finch and the t-shirt was the summer of 07 version. It looks a worn and small for Levi, so the picture was probably taken in 08.

I think the pictures are important since it seems they were released by Mercedes as a warning to Bristol about what she was saying about Levi in her book and to not enhance what I consider Bristol’s written lies more in the interviews about the book. It seems to have worked since Bristol has walked back from the rape story.

The pictures definitely seem to be taken in the maternity room at the hospital in Wasilla. Sadie says the only baby Levi visited in the hospital was Trig. However, she does not say what the date was and many of us believe that whoever birthed him, Trig was born before long before April 18th.

The timing of the “kitchen” pictures does not seem to work. They supposedly are taken on Levi’s 18th birthday. However, Sadie says Levi got the Johnston tattoo on his 18th birthday and that would have been the first day that he could have gotten without his parent’s permission (or maybe presence). From what others have said a tattoo that large would have had a lot of redness and weeping and if that is true, the tatoo was not made the day the picture was taken.

In comparing Levi’s age, it is helpful to look at the picture of Levi, his father and supposedly Tripp, I think from Sadie’s blog since her text is on it. If it is Tripp, the picture would have been taken in early 09 and to me Levi looks much younger than he did in the convention pictures. That picture supposedly was also taken in the Palin’s house and Levi has a different t-shirt on than he does in the kitchen pictures. This t-shirt has McCain Palin at the top but it seems it was either a transfer ironed on or a photo shop since it has a white rim around much of it. I suspect it was photo shopped to date the picture as after August 08 but it was really taken earlier. I wonder if this is Trig. And we still have the phrase “Trig was Tripp before he was Trig.” And we still seem to have at least two Trigs, ruffles and the very large for his age Trig presented at the convention.

I think the picture on the left is of Levi and a baby he thinks is his and that it was taken in January of February of 08 and this baby eventually becomes Trig. If Bristol is the mother, she was reported in I think Wasilla as part of a car accident and I think she also appeared in court. Many of us have thought that Bristol had a baby in early 08 but I also thought it was born somewhere else with a neonatal unit.

I think the second baby is ruffles and am not sure when he would have been born or whose child he is. I am not sure of the dating of the second picture. If Sadie is correct about the date of the tattoo I think it is later than it is said. This baby is certainly smaller than the baby with the Heaths.

I guess it is important to try to find when the tattoo was done but that may not be possible. I think Mercedes is being careful of what she says because her mother is still serving her sentence at home. She has accomplished what she wanted to and IMO may muddy the waters if folks get too close to the truth.

molly malone

6/29/2011 12:20:19 am

@ Brad.

Don't know if this would be worth the effort, but if you flipped one of the pics of Levi so he's facing in the same direction, it may be easier to make comparisons between the two.

Since the right hand photo appears to be a closer shot than pic on left, it might also help if the RH one was reduced in scale to approximate the proportions of the one on the left.

Possibly it would also be helpful to overlay a transparent image of (flipped and re sized) photo on left over photo on right. Although Levi's head is not in quite the same position in both pics, something might pop out.

cuzIsaidso

6/29/2011 12:30:31 am

cuzIsaidso

6/29/2011 12:35:49 am

The only alternative explanation I see for no indication of fresh tattoo scabbing/redness is that what we see in the above photo is the thermal stencil transfer one has placed prior to actual tattoo. It's hard to imagine why one would take a break mid-process, but certainly a possibility.

lilly lily

6/29/2011 12:37:22 am

Sun streaked curls on left side, a younger boy. Darker, much darker hair on right with no tan at all. The hand streaks might be old healed wounds.

Mercede made that baby brother remark which always was interpreted in the wrong way. The right baby could be the more delicate preemie baby brother to the left child.

It seems to a more mature chunky boy on the right, no question in my mind that is could well be a different time period from his golden tanned skin, gilded sun streaked hair and slighter frame and muscle mass. Not only the camera lighting.

A good looking young boy who attracted the wrong girl in the wrong family.

From all I've seen it was Bristol who made the decision to have children. Most immature boys don't want kids, unless it is a status game in their circles to make a lot of baby mamas.

Immature girls do want something of their own to love, and to trap a guy.

Levi at the RNC looked similar to the second shot, more mature.

I don't know if the two kids are Bristols, but they sure made Levi think these two infants were his. There is no reason for him to hold these infants otherwise. He does hold them tenderly, and he behaved that way with Trigg at the RNC. I don't think it is faked.

Perhaps they are one infant, but I always thought there have been three used. Also there are multiple Trigs.

The Palins and their golden geese.

Will have to go through the remarks for other peoples take on the photos.

Molly

6/29/2011 01:01:34 am

Here is another photo of Levi with Mercede. He has the Johnston tattoo and he also has the Bristol tattoo on his finger, so it was obviously taken at a later date. What is interesting is that if you zoom in on the photo, there is a picture of a baby in the cabinet behind Levi. I know it could be anyone's baby and anyone's house but the pic may be helpful in dating the other ones.

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/gallery/levi-and-mercede-johnston/

Anonymoose

6/29/2011 01:04:55 am

Mercede is telling us there are two babies. The baby on the left is obviously, undoubtedly larger therefore older than the one on the right. The picture on the right with the younger baby was definitely taken after the photo on the left, because you can't hide a tattoo that big. So, who are these two babies? I think the one on the right (ruffles?) looks like a baby with down syndrome, so I would guess Trig. Which baby is Levi's? I would guess the one on the right. So why did Levi take a photo with the baby on the left?? Did he really think this was Sarah Palin's baby, then discovered it was a borrowed baby while she waited to poach his own son as her own? Why did Bristol take this photo of Levi??

I think this means that ruffles was not born a lot earlier than April 18 as people have thought, because he still looks tiny on May 3. I think this confirms that the date of the ruffles shots is May 3, or at the very least after April 18. However the baby on the left looks older than a newborn. So maybe the baby on the left is Bristol and Levi's, and ruffles is Trig who Sarah adopted/stole through the church/state services. Who knows how they got rid of the ruffle though, ear molds? A baby switch? And why did Sarah Palin use the bigger baby, if she had access to the tiny ruffles who looks like he was born prematurely around April 18?? Was ruffles born April 18 at Anchorage, and the prop baby was produced the same day at Matsu to match the birth certificate date? We need more clues, Mercede!!

6/29/2011 01:10:46 am

If Mercede really does have information that would expose the baby hoax, I wish someone would let her know that she won't be completely safe until she does.

molly malone

6/29/2011 01:12:10 am

@ cuzisaidso.

Looks like a thermal transfer to me, too. I've never seen a new tat that wasn't red along the edges. And for good reason. Takes a whole lot of needle punctures to produce any tattoo, much less one the size of JOHNSTON.

silver

6/29/2011 01:30:59 am

It would not be Tripp in the green shirt picture as there is no tattoo yet, unless Tripp was born earlier than they claim he was.

If both pictures are of Levi holding Trig, once at the hospital and then again at the house on his birthday, it seems strange that Sarah would say she hardly knew him when he and Bristol told her about the pregnancy. Sarah claims it had only been about the second time she'd had a conversation with him.

Yet Levi was at the hospital when Trig was born, having his picture taken with Sarah's baby, and then held her baby again in Sarah's own home on his birthday and another picture was taken?

Sarah trusted him to hold her newborn, special needs, infant twice yet barely knew him to talk to him?

Her daughter had been dating Levi since she was 15 and Sarah barely knew him?

Sarah wouldn't question why her daughter's boyfriend was wearing what looks to be a wedding band on his ring finger?

Phyllis

6/29/2011 01:54:11 am

Has any woman on here ever brought their baby home in the hospital receiving blanket?
All the mothers that I've ever known have taken an outfit from home to dress the baby in on discharge day.
It's strange that Piper is sitting there in the Palin home with Tripp wrapped in a hospital receiving blanket.

SLQ

6/29/2011 02:16:24 am

FWIW, I don't think the marks on his forearm or the back of his hand are bruises. If the L pic is Levi in the hospital with Trig (April 18), and the R pic (May 3?), that's 15 days. After 15 days, a bruise is either gone or faintly yellow. I got several bruises two weeks ago. They are gone.

So, I think they are more likely scars or birth marks.

SLQ

6/29/2011 02:19:22 am

V, I think the reason he got it on his 18th birthday is that he no longer required parental permission. (Someone posted AK law that you have to be 18.) So, if he turned 18 on May 3, he would have had to have his mother's permission. If she was going to give permission anyway, why wait until you're 18?

lilly lily

6/29/2011 02:25:51 am

Another thing.

Sarah baredly knew Levi she claims, yet she has Mercedes is her daughters enemy at school in her home, plus Sherri or is it Sherry there for a birthday celebration for Levi? Very strange, Sarah and Bristol are not forgiving women. Plus Sarah leaning over picture beaming with Mercede. And the second baby's arm? Twins?

Mercede and Bristol were never buddies. And with the brou ha ha with Lanesia they were more at daggers drawn terms.

No photo of Bristol there holding the baby Trig?

Mhurka

6/29/2011 02:39:50 am

Levi definitely looks older in the right photo. His musculature is much more bulkier and more developed. Barring steroid use muscles don't develop that quickly.

6/29/2011 02:56:31 am

I see the same kid, different lighting, but with a haircut. He looks ruddy in both pictures, and the muscles etc. look the same to me.

Re: the tattoo, don't some artists do trial sketches before making a permanent tattoo? If the photo on the right was indeed on the 18th birthday, could that not be the trial sketch and not a permanent tattoo?

I can tell you for sure that none of my boyfriends, when I was in my teens through my 20s, would have cuddled the newborns in my family that way. But some people are more baby people than others.

Anonymoose

6/29/2011 03:06:35 am

Also, Levi appears to have waxed his eyebrows between photos. Lol.

Melly

6/29/2011 03:12:52 am

We're basing too much on things Mercede said.

Mercede said the Ruffles pic in the Palin kitchen photo on the right (and we know this is Ruffles because we've seen another shot from this series with the right ear clearly visible) was taken on Levi's birthday, May 3? 2008. What if it was Sarah's birthday in March 2008?

Mercede said Levi got his tat when he turned 18. Did she mean on his exact birthday? Maybe a little before or after? Would laws regarding minors really have stopped him from getting one sooner?

Mercede said that Trig's birth was the only time Levi was in the hospital--I assume she means before Tripp? And would she know Levi's every move in life up to/after this hospital pic?

Mercede said she was never aware of Ruffles's ear when she was holding him. Really????

Mercede wrote captions on the kitchen photos that make no sense to us even today.

I think she's a decent girl, and maybe she does fear for her mom's situation. But I sure wouldn't base any conclusions about these pix on any claims made by Mercede.

lilly lily

6/29/2011 03:26:08 am

Wholy Mary, surely you are spassing?

Lou Sarah?

Viola-Alex

6/29/2011 03:34:20 am

Rubbernecking's link to Levi's hairdo in 2007-08 Hockey season jives with another thought I had about his appearance in these two photos. ( I'm drawing a bit on my own experience of my son's high school phases. . .)

My impression is that Levi's body is tighter, more muscular in Photo 1. He has that high school athlete look. By photo 2, his arms and upper body appear softer, even kind of bloated -- like a former athlete not working out every day.

Of course, this can be the lighting. But doing a bit of online research to refresh my memory, I found some interesing facts in 9/08 nyt article on Palin and her her Wasilla hockey rink AND a Palins Deceptions post on Levi and Bristol's homeschooling in Sept 2007.

Levi and Bristol were not in school Fall 2007. Bristol doesn't show up back in a formal schooling until spring 2008. (PD) Levi plays hockey for Wasilla High Warriors through 2007-08 even though he's homeschooled. It was his last season. The hockey season ends in Feb.

Based on Levi's appearance and this information, I'd say photo 1 is definitely during Levi's full-on hockey career. The streaked hair makes me think of the summer, when most kids do the crazy stuff. Photo 2, I'm not so sure. But it's possible that having had a baby has taken a toll on Levi's hockey ambitions, and that by the end of 07-08 season, he knows (and his body shows) his hockey career is over.

Does this make any sense?

These two links are quite amazing. The NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/12hockeymom.html?pagewanted=print

This article quotes Curtis Menard! who often showed up to watch Track play! It also reports that people at the Wasilla rink said that Bristol and Levi had been together for a year. That means they were together at least since Sept 2007.

And dear Audrey's detailed post on Bristol's sudden turn to homeschooling in the fall of 2007:

http://palindeception.blogspot.com/2009/05/bristol-palin-homeschooler.html

viola-alex

6/29/2011 03:39:44 am

Phillis, I like how you think. No woman brings her baby home in the hospital receiving blanket-- except for a baby which could not publically have been bought for or had showers for.

If Sarah were angry and Bristol was 16-17 (and no pre-birth showers), then yes, there might be no cute receiving blanket for bringing the baby home.

6/29/2011 03:52:24 am

With respect to Tripp, Bristol received loads of presents. With respect to Trig, there was a baby shower - but wasn't it after Sarah's faux delivery?

However, there are other reasons why the blanket might be from the hospital, or why there might not be a shower. If the baby was supposed to be up for adoption ... or if they were trying to make it look like a baby fresh from the hospital.

Anonymoose

6/29/2011 03:57:51 am

Tattoo looks like it is in the right place to me.
http://www.malecelebnews.com/?cat=18&paged=2

Also I think Mercede is telling the truth about these photos, and Levi's tattoo. I think she is trying to help us as subtly as she can without getting herself in trouble with the Palins. Not sure about stuff she has said in the past, but if she was trying to help the Palins, she would not have released these photos. So I choose to presume she is telling the truth about the photo and tattoo dates, otherwise it would have been pointless for her to give us the photo clues, why give them to us unless she wants us to discover something about these photos? If she wanted us to discover something about these photos, she wouldn't lie to us about them because that would prevent us from discovering whatever she wants us to discover. She is no doubt leaving stuff out that is important, but I don't think she's lying. And I don't think she is doing it to confuse us and help the Palins - why release a photo which obviously shows there are two babies being identified as Trig Palin? No matter what the exact dates of photos or tattoos, the sizes of the babies, and the appearance of a tattoo that proves the chronological order of the photos show that there are two babies. And no one trying to help Sarah Palin would provide evidence that proves there are 2 babies. People are getting too caught up in the details of exact dates and haircuts- the tattoo proves the order of the photos. The baby in the earlier photo is larger and longer than the baby in the later photo, therefore they are not the same baby. Simple. This is what I believe Mercede is telling us.

@Wholy Mary, so if Keith is the father of the baby on the left, who is the mother? I don't see why Levi would continue to have a relationship with Bristol if she was screwing his dad. Is Levi the father of the baby on the right, and Bristol the mother?

alexis

6/29/2011 04:02:16 am

@Anon

I'm with you on this one regarding the tatoo. I've looked at some pics of levi with his tatoo and they show it:

1) Lower down closer to his wrist bone

2) Not a perfectly straight

I think this tatoo pic was photoshopped along with the foot prints on the pic

Here are some links:

http://www.godammit.com/2009/03/11/operation-bristol-palin/

http://www.thedailypage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46475

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.buzznet.com/media/jj1/2009/10/johnston-nuts/levi-johnston-nuts-pistachio-04.jpg&imgrefurl=http://kipscadd.com/scored-pale-pink-johnston-cashmere-socks/&usg=__H4Iv3zfmmS52sCNarRi4islqees=&h=815&w=1222&sz=178&hl=en&start=270&zoom=1&tbnid=vy6Y0VBU5bGTGM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=185&ei=SGcLTqjOGIaRsAK-0sW3AQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dlevi%2Bjohnston%2Btattoo%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D600%26tbm%3Disch&chk=sbg&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=816&vpy=283&dur=29&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=169&ty=106&page=14&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:20,s:270

Palintologist

6/29/2011 04:17:14 am

As creepy as it sounds I suspect Keith is the father and Bristol the mother of Trig. Maybe drugs, money or spite involved.

Anonymoose

6/29/2011 04:18:48 am

Why would Star magazine, Playboy, and whatever other publications that have printed photos of Levi bother to photoshop in a tattoo? And what a coincidence that they all managed to photoshop the tattoo in the exact same place. Plus didn't some people from politicalgates go to Vegas to interview Levi, and then write a blogpost that mentioned his tattoo? If there was no tattoo, they would have noticed and said something. Plus you can see just the edges of it in plenty of photos, which would be difficult to photoshop. Like the cover of Star, if you look closely you can see the black shadow of the tattoo on the underside of his arm near the sleeve. And why bother photoshopping in a dark shadow? This is a red herring, and distracting from the real evidence

Palintologist

6/29/2011 04:24:05 am

Eventually this story will finally break and then Sarah will have a new theme song. I'm thinking Warren Zevons' "Lawyer's, Guns & Money" might be suitable as he sings the lyric "The S#*t has hit the fan"

Anonymoose

6/29/2011 04:29:50 am

@Palintologist The thing I don't get about this theory is if Bristol and Keith were having an affair and got pregnant, why did Levi stick around and have a kid with Bristol (or if Mercede is telling the truth, try to get pregnant on purpose with Bristol). Could Levi be screwed up enough to get engaged to someone who was cheating on him with and got impregnated by his father? Wouldn't the Johnstons have hated Bristol way back in April/May for screwing their father and breaking up their parents marriage(apart from the ick factor), as well as cheating on Levi? And not be in the kitchen of the cheater/family wrecker happily taking photos of the love child that broke up their family? It doesn't make sense.

FrostyAK

6/29/2011 04:33:03 am

Left pic looks as if Levi had been working at a laborer/construction job over the summer. Tan and summer blonde hair is telltale of that here in AK. Tanning beds are used by many, but they don't leave tan lines, unless some idiot wears a shirt while tanning. Nor do they put blonde tips on the hair.

Left pic looks like a young athlete who has worked a hard summer job - fit and tanned. Right pic looks like a retired athlete going to paunch after an AK winter.

Maybe Levi is just a tender-hearted young chap and loves all babies, but his public personna does not give any indication of that. The way he holds the babies and his expression tell me he thinks the baby(s) is his.

I see Wholey Mary is still trying to throw monkey wrenches into the conversation. Thanks so much for that Mary...

lilly lily

6/29/2011 04:42:59 am

In essense we are trying to make sense out of the nonsense Sarah Palin has put out there.

The most logical to me is this. Bristol was home schooled and so was Levi after she got pregnant with #1. Baby we call Ruffles. Ruffles was to be put up for adoption, but had problems, FAS and is fragile, not a healthy baby, or even a possiblity of twins. Bristol, vengeful at having her first taken away, promptly gets pregnant to Sarahs disgust at having her politicing for the VP slot possibly aborted by a scandal. So Sarah pretends to be pregnant after the fact, as there is so much talk around town about Bristol. She only pretends after she feels it would benefit her. She figures she can always say she miscarried. After April 18th She presents The preemie Ruffles at the baby shower, but a FAS baby will look bad, and somehow she latches on to Trig. Perhaps a family member, or Todd's, who knows, but Trig isn't Bristols. Bristol and Levi are presented as we know at the RNC convention. A large Trigg is toted around. He is deaf and visually impaired, and possibly doped on Nyquil, because he is the most unresponsive baby I have ever seen given being hauled around like a inanimate object subjected to all that noise and lights. She also at least once, substituted Trig for another child who resembled Trig during the Book tour. (Baby Blue, who is responsive, doesn't have a protruding large tongue and is much more alert and personable to crowds than Trig 1.) Bristol has baby #2 Tripp, though possibly later than he supposed BD Dec..

Doctor has to be aware of all this. Probably not criminal or something that would enable her to bypass HIPAA, plus she is implecated more and more deeply after the first deception, so she can't speak out. Or she may consider it a private matter, and not a hoax showing Palins character and lack of fitness to be POTUS. Manipulative Sarah has compramized her completly so she keeps her mouth tightly shut.

No photos of Bristol in the presense of these new borns, but everyone else but she and Sarah are holding the infants, or infant. Whatever.

lilly lily

6/29/2011 05:00:01 am

Bristol is very cocky and pleased with her new face and her finances, plus the publicity which enables her to capitalize on all the lies. She will become loose lipped in these interviews.

If anyone breaks it will be Bristol because she does blurt things out before she catches herself in her lies. Not as experienced as Mom is.

Everything that goes on in that family, or that fictional boat won't stay on that fictional boat, or fictional kitchen table.

Bristol is lashing out at Mercede again. The crack about not posing naked is a shot at the Playboy shoot. She is a jealous girl, even with her new face she isn't as wholesome looking as Mercede.

The Johnston kids are naturally good looking, even if Mercede needed a enhanced chest for the naked photos.

viola-alex

6/29/2011 05:17:53 am

Lilylily, I like it. So, to make sure I follow you-- There are three babies. Baby #1 born to Bristol/Levi sometime in fall-spring 2007-8.
Baby #2 are the Trig Hoax babies that Sarah digs up to take the focus off the Bristol rumors.
Baby #3 is Tripp born Dec 08.

If I got what you said right then what happens to Baby #1? Would they really have let Piper hold a baby who was to be adopted away from the family?

viola-alex

6/29/2011 05:26:39 am

RE: tattoo. Will someone explain to me what that straight, white edge is on Levi's arm (Photo 2) with tattoo on one side and ruddy skin on the other. It's very much an edge, with two different skin colors on either side.

Ferry Fey

6/29/2011 05:27:51 am

I brought my first baby home from the hospital in the blanket she got there. Teal and tan stripes, IIRC. Some people do.

Jeanette 123

6/29/2011 05:47:17 am

I don't think we can believe any dates on these pictures and should assume that things could have been photoshopped in or out to confuse us about the dates. For instance the Johnston could have been photoshopped in and the birthday cake put there to make it look as though it was taken on Levi's birthday. I know Levi had this tattoo but he may not have had it when this picture was taken.

The picture may have been taken much before early May and Sadie photoshopped the tattoo in. Once its done, it will show any time this picture is used.

Is there an expert who can tell if these photographs have been altered other than the footprints?

As frustrating as these pictures are, I do think they are important. I think Sadie released the new ones to remind the Palins what she had and it was enough for Bristol to back away from the date rape story.

If the tan and tips in the picture on the L came from the sun, the picture would have to have been taken in September or early October. While Bristol had a bump then it didn't look like she was 7, 8, or 9 months pregnant.

lilly lily

6/29/2011 06:02:24 am

I would imagine they didn't realize Baby 1 was as fragile as it turned out to be. Or that it was FAS.

I can't get over the photos with everyone getting to hold the baby, whichever it was but Bristol. Even at the shower. A daughter of a quest held the baby, but was Bristol even there?

The photo of the first baby with Bristol was the fragile baby on the picnic with the canella in its nose. The photo from the hacked site that the kid from Tennessee got sent to jail for. The Palins were very vengeful with him. But they always are. Still Bristol made a big issue of him showing pictures of her "brother" the court transcript or her "baby" as Fox reported.

Perhaps the FAS aspect was why he isn't around. We know Bristol drinks, and drank heavily before she realized she was pregnant. Look how they spin it now. Now it is fruit drinks she didn't know had alcohol? Huh? The drinking part of Bristols existance is being whited out. But the National Enquirer has brought it out again.

We here know what a bunch of self serving hypocrits these Palins are, but everyone else in the country doesn't.

Though Bristol is walking back the obvious implication that Levi raped her in her book.

alexis

6/29/2011 06:03:52 am

@Jeanette 123

What you are saying is exactly what I was trying to get at with what I wrote above. I was in no way trying to "muddy the waters" of the conversation. But was simply trying to put forth my own observatiions.

I believe the levi has the "johnstons" tatoo but not necessarily in this picture.

The first time I saw this picture, I honestly thought that tatoo was some sort of stamp along with the footprints. There are two other footprints in the image that you can't see in this cropped version.

And yes perhaps someone with photography skills can look at the picture for layers and put this tatoo issue to REST!!

With regards to the parents of the babies. I don't think mercede would write "baby brother" unless it was HER baby brother.

Phew enough for me, playing armchair detective is exhausting

SOMEONE NEEDS TO SPILL THE BEANS!!!

lilly lily

6/29/2011 06:05:30 am

Sorry, not fruit drinks but wine coolers that relaxed her. And then knocked her out to the degree that she remembered nothing. Was unconcious?

What total B.S.

ProChoiceGrandma

6/29/2011 06:17:25 am

@viola-alex, It looks like Levi's arm is shaved in pic #2, which would indicate that the "Johnston" tatoo is fairly recent, although it doesn't appear red or swollen. Since I've never had a tatoo, I can't speak as to how quickly it would heal, or even if it looks fine as soon as it is completed.
Does anyone remember when Mercede said she got her tatoo on her wrist?

lilly lily

6/29/2011 06:25:15 am

Bristol evidently (I haven't read her book and won't) wrote that she never drank. That she didn't know the differences between vodka, beer and whiskey.

I think less and less of the public believe anything she says.

Like the Paul Revere thingee, you can't walk back complete stupidity when it is printed in a book, or spoken on widely viewed video.

I see more and more disgust with Bristol, where previously she got the benefit of a doubt from people as she was young and immature.

lilly lily

6/29/2011 06:39:01 am

Another thought. A FAS baby would be much less of an issue than a Downs child.

The reason, alcohol is something you are responsible for taking, Downs? you aren't at fault. It happens.

To allow the public to assume Bristol was a hard drinker would be disastrous and speak to Sarah's parenting abilities.

Look how hard they are spinning the Wine Cooler angle.

lilly lily

6/29/2011 07:04:51 am

Sorry, A downs child would be less of a problem to explain than a FAS child.

Though I can't get into the Palin mind set at all.

On the whole I find Sarah and her logic incomprehensable and disgusting when I do figure it out.

Say completly self serving and at others expense and you can understand what I mean.

Totally selfish.

ginny11

6/29/2011 07:08:39 am

Hmmmm....after looking at quite a few photos of Levi where we can see his tattoo, I have to say that I think it is quite possible that it WAS photoshopped into THIS picture with Trig in the Palins' home.
Remember how this picture first became public? For a long time, we had only seen the photos of Mercede holding Trig from that occasion in the Palins' home, because they were found on her myspace page back when Sarah was chosen for VP nomination. One with Sarah in it, one with Bristol in it.
Then, the tiggybear one with Levi popped up during the Johnston's interview on the Tyra Banks show in spring of 2009, when a series of photos of TRIPP were being flashed across the screen! Of course, "babygaters" were the only people who immediately realized that this was NOT Tripp and Levi, but was Trig and Levi because they recognized the same setting and the same clothing on Mercede as the myspace Triggybear photos! We immediately suspected that the Johnstons had included it as a warning to the Palins (who were not letting them see Tripp at the time) that they had evidence of the real story of Trig. But, no one even thought about or questioned the tattoo at that time (that I remember) because we didn't know when Levi had gotten it and it didn't seem important back then. Also, we didn't have lots of other pics of the tattoo back then to compare to, even if we wanted to.
BUT....(assuming for a moment that the triggybear photos were taken months earlier than May of 2008) the Johnstons may have realized that since the official story was that these photos of Mercede and Levi holding Trig at the Palins took place on May 3 2008, Levi's birthday, he HAD to have a tattoo in that pic because he really DID have the tattoo on his actual birthday. So, they wanted to warn the Palins by showing that they have the photo, but didn't want other people (who would have realized that the absence of the tattoo meant the official date give for the photo was false)to realize something was amiss. They weren't ready to let the truth out to that degree. So, they PS'd in the tattoo.
I'm not saying that this happened for sure, but to me, the tattoo looks like it is not in the same spot on Levi's arm in the triggybear photo, compared to all others I can find. The beginning of the tattoo, especially, seems to start farther away from his wristbone in the triggybear photo than in the others. But, I can't be sure because of the angle.

Viola-Alex

6/29/2011 07:34:41 am

RE: photoshopped tattoo. That's my point about the line between whiter/rosier skin. Yes, ProChoiceGrandma, that could mean shaving. BUT it could also mean photoshopping. This would be quite easy. The 'shopper lifts the tattoo from another photo, resizes it, positions it, and voila! There will be an edge if the tattoo isn't cropped tightly. Anyone could do this. Especially since the baby footprints have been added to the photo.

So Ginny, you could well be right. The only thing that dates this photo is Mercede's remark about the tattoo. Otherwise, it could be anybody's birthday-- especially SArah's since she's grinning in the photo.

Molly

6/29/2011 08:03:15 am

RE: photoshopped tattoo as well. I just went back and had a closer look and I do see the line as well between the white/rosier skin too. It is quite defined. It is also obvious above the tattoo. My thoughts were that he shaved the area before the tattoo was applied (is that normal?) or the lighting is playing tricks with us or else it is photoshopped.

Also the bruise on his hand is a lot darker in the second pick which would suggest that the second photo was taken first. However, he does seem more tanned in the first photo so it may be that the tan is simply hiding a scar or birthmark.

I am so confused!!!

Laura Novak link

6/29/2011 08:15:10 am

Thank you everyone for a great discussion. More than anything else, I am intrigued by the idea of a boy wearing a wedding band. Either you wear one b/c you're married, or you don't wear one. A gold band on that finger means one thing. You don't usually have fun with a ring on that finger for nothing!

Does anyone recall if Mercedes ever addressed that?

My husband laughs so hard when I ask him if he would have held his high school girlfriend's mother's baby. He laughs so hard, I never quite hear his answer.

And Palintologist: I have to agree with others. How does a family overlook such an event and go on to glow and coo about a baby in the circumstances you describe? Not saying you're not right. But the rest of the picture doesn't fit.

DebinOH

6/29/2011 08:22:15 am

Well, I personally think both babies look the same. I had a 5#7oz baby and a 5#14oz baby and they were tiny. We had to get special diapers for the 5.7 one because when he lost weight after birth he couldn't fit in regular newborn diapers. Both babies have an incredibly small face. The baby Sally Heath is holding has such a full face that I don't think that baby is either of these babies.

Regarding the pictures, I don't know what to think. Levi's arms in the L picture look so "soft" and hairless (or maybe I just need glasses). His arms look older in the R picture. But since I think both babies look incredibly small and the same to me maybe that doesn't mean a thing?

The only thing I would like to know is how on May 3rd that baby got the size of the Trig we were introduced to at the end of August. He is enormous just three - four months later? My babies were at the bottom of the growth chart for weight and height for quite some time.

Now if they gave him formula every time he cried that could make some difference but that big of a difference? But again then we go back to the issue of feeding. Most low birth weight babies have a horrible sucking reflex. It took me hours to get my boys awake enough to feed. We had to hold them and tip them upside down and bring them up at least twenty-five times each feeding. Don't ask me about that - it is what the nurses told us to do.

I don't know, like someone said above, anything that has to do with the Palins never makes sense. 2+2 in their world does = purple ;)

Laura Novak link

6/29/2011 08:32:49 am

I know, Deb, I have asked the same thing, and in fact, Doc and I are looking at a few pictures. No promises for when we'll have something to post, but as the mom of a 5.14 oz-er with feeding issues who hovered in the 10th percentile, I've LONG wondered the same thing.

Great minds think a like!

Floyd M. Orr link

6/29/2011 08:34:17 am

My two cents concerning the tattoo is that although we may not be able to ascertain the exact date Levi added it to his arm, it is most certainly present in every photo I can find of him that is obviously dated since 8/29/08, and probably in some photos prior to that date. This of course includes the famous kitchen photo. I wonder if possibly the tattoo is even present in the green shirt photo, but the angle of his arm does not quite show it? Any speculation that the tattoo has been Photoshopped into the picture is most likely nonsense. The tattoo is clearly visible in many later shots of Levi. As for the baby, I think it is Ruffles in both shots; the earlier one was taken at the hospital and the later one in the kitchen was taken days or weeks later. In between the two, Levi simply got a haircut.

daisydem

6/29/2011 08:34:29 am

After looking at all these pictures now, I seem to be more confused than ever. I think a lot of us are. How many babies? How many are Levi's? Maybe none. It is a real puzzle.

I really do not have much to add to the mix, except, I too now believe that the JOHNSON on Levi's arm is not a tattoo, but some kind of photographic enhancement of the pic, much like the footprints. Just an added touch. Yet, I do see it in the other photo where there are no footprints, so I am not 100% sure (of anything, I might add). To the commenter who says that Bristol and Mercede were not ever really good friends, what about the "prom" photo we saw that looks like it was taken in the Palin home; Mercede posted it also I think on her FB or MySpace, and she is dressed for the prom, but Bristol is in jeans and sweatshirt; Mercede's caption reads something like "My sister ... my best friend."

DebinOH

6/29/2011 08:35:33 am

Oops, I forgot to add that the ring issue is beyond bizarre. I agree with Laura - a gold band on the left ring finger makes no sense at all.

But then again like someone said above SP claims she only met Levi a few times but he supposedly is at the hospital when her baby is born, has a birthday celebration at the Palins with his mom (I swear someone said his mom was there too) and his sister.

Someone said before that "in the valley" the rumor was that BP & Levi were married. Maybe they were married like Track and his wife - on the side of a mountain with only her parents and his parents?

Molly

6/29/2011 08:37:20 am

Laura, and when he finally lost the ring, he had Bristol's name tattoed on the same finger! Were they actually married? There would only be one reason for that at their age.

viola-alex

6/29/2011 08:59:53 am

AK age of consent = 16.

Punkinbugg

6/29/2011 09:01:32 am

Let's look at the BIG PICTURE:

These photos are prints from Mercede Johnston. They were never meant for public view. They were scrubbed from her computer by Rovian Goons. They were most likely kept in a box for scrapbooking purposes. Two stuck together, causing the white scrape on one.

We have not one, but TWO shots of her brother sitting in a hospital room, holding a baby. If you believe the Palin story, it's the wee hours of Saturday 4/19/08. If we don't believe the Palin story, it could be any time prior to that date. The tattoo is missing, so this is not Tripp. Mercede says Levi never visited any other baby at Mat-Su, so it must be Trig. From this we conclude: Levi Johnston holding the Governor's baby. As though it were his own.

Two weeks later, May 3, 2008 (also a Saturday), Levi is photographed. Again. Holding the Governor's baby, this time up under his chin, not on his lap or even elbow-high. We are told that's his birthday cake (blue candles = boy's b'day) in the background. We are told the date of this photo is 5/3/08, because Mercede said he got the tattoo for his 18th birthday & they were at the Palin's for cake. He is posing with his sister's arm around him.

Mercede posts digital copies of other pictures from this occasion on her MySpace with the captions, "Triggy Bear" "Baby Brother" and "Mommy-in-law". Because of this attention, I conclude that Mercede is meeting the baby for the first time, and it's a special occasion. She scrapbooks the photo, adding little footprints.

Forget the ring, the tan line, the double chin, the tattoo and the scrapes on his hand.

Big Picture: An 18-year-old boy and his 16-year-old sister are photographed with their "friend's" MOTHER'S baby - in half a dozen different poses. Somehow, their connection to THIS baby is familial. And she's got a whole shoebox full of photos to prove it.

molly malone

6/29/2011 09:36:06 am

@ Viola-Alex.

I think you may be onto something with re to JOHNSTON tattoo.

Now this is where I bog down. The soft white line above the letters does not gently roll into the spaces between the letters. Even though, in Photo Shop, this would be a simple matter of overlaying the letters upon an airbrushed background and deserves a bit more scrutiny.

While the tattooed letters do gradually grow from smaller (near the wrist) to larger approaching the elbow, in keeping with the rules of linear perspective (to wit: parallel lines converge as they recede), the same rules also apply to rounded surfaces, such as an arm. And in the 2nd photo of Levi and babe, the perspective of the JOHNSTON tattoo does not compute. The bottoms of the letters are as wide as they are at the top.

I have no idea what this means. All I can say for absolute certainty is that this is the greatest mystery most of us will ever gather together to solve in our lifetimes. It is not a Right or Left political issue. At base, it boils down to: OMG, what happened while I was sleeping?

Ron

6/29/2011 09:58:22 am

Laura, have you read Mercede's old blog posts about McCain staffers coming to her home and perhaps scrubbing her computer? If I recall, people wanted her to take her hard drive out of town & have someone try to save the deleted files. She has got to have more photos, but I'm sure she's scared for her mom right now.

FEDUP!!!

6/29/2011 10:13:03 am

Well, after checking the pics provided of Levi with his tattoo (Thanks, Alexis!), it seems to me that this first one up above (the one in the Palins kitchen) might be photo-shopped. The start of the letters seems to be a bit farther back than what you see in the other pics IMHO.

SLQ

6/29/2011 10:22:15 am

I've been thinking about the tatoo itself, and wondering what it means. Per Mercedes, Levi got this tatoo immediately upon turning 18, so it is important to him.

We know that Levi got a tattoo of Tripp around his 21st birthday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6yL8IMk16I

We also know he got Bristol's name tattooed on his ring finger.

So . . . what does "Johnston" mean. Just a validation of his family and heritage? Or, is this a tribute to his first son, the one he knows he will never be able to claim, the one that he knows is a Johnston?

Rationalist

6/29/2011 10:33:16 am

In the Vanity Fair article, there's a mention of Palin teasing Levi about how he's going to "lose that ring if he's not careful."

We all know that Sarah Palin rewrites history to suit her current agenda. So it's possible that Levi and Bristol were actually once married and now Palin denies ever even knowing him. I'm pretty sure a search was done to see if there was any record of a Johnston-Palin marriage in Alaska and none was found.

However, I looked in Washington state and found a case with Levi C. Johnston in November 2008. No details available. So I started to wonder: what if they got married and possibly divorced out of state? Washington, Oregon? What about Bristol's trip to NYC? Any chance there was a quickie wedding on that trip?

Laura - I'm having little luck accessing that kind of information online. Do you know any reporter's tricks for looking up that stuff? Would it be on Lexis/Nexis perhaps?

Anybody else? Can we each do this research in our own states?

If we can find solid evidence that Bristol and Levi were married, maybe someone in the MSM will see fit to ask Palin about why she lied about it. What could she possibly say? It might be a key to unraveling her story.

As an aside: Poor Bristol, if what we think may be true is true. I know she's mean and nasty now, but think about it.

Raised by a narcissistic mother who never really "sees" her except as an extension of her own ego. Expected to do most of the parenting to her younger siblings. (Remember: Palin offered Bristol's babysitting services to Tina Fey ON BRISTOL'S 18TH BIRTHDAY, which she had to spend with her mother in NYC filming SNL!)

But more to the point: very likely forced to give up a child, and then thrown to the wolves to become internationally famous as a pregnant teen. Then told she can't be with the boy she clearly once truly loved, and very likely bound to a heinous lie that can never be revealed. Finally, she's pimped out for fundraising and public speaking and television appearances, where she is roundly lambasted for being fat and ignorant (which she, sadly, is). Encouraged to get plastic surgery even though she was such a pretty girl. And now, compelled to write a book to support a narrative that is entirely fiction. She's become exactly what her mom wants - needs - her to be, and I can't get that image of her that Gryphen posted out of my mind - Bristol under layers of plastic surgery, with only her mouth and eyebrows moving. It's grotesque. She's grotesque now, and it's so, so sad.

Jeez, this is a tragic story. It's really hitting me right now.

But anyway - Laura - how about that idea of a records search? Honestly, it could be any state.

(On the other hand - as I write - I think that Palin probably wouldn't have allowed them to be actually married with a paper trail to prove it. But maybe - just maybe?)

ginny11

6/29/2011 10:39:54 am

Floyd, no one is saying that tattoo never existed at all. We are saying that it seems possible that the Levi/triggybear photo was actually taken weeks/months before May 3 2008, at a time that Levi did NOT yet have the tattoo. And so, to make it look like this pic was taken on May 3 2008, the tattoo was PS'd in. I've seen pretty amazing things done with photoshop, and I have no doubt that it's easily POSSIBLE that this could have been done. Not saying for sure that it WAS done.

Floyd M. Orr link

6/29/2011 10:53:29 am

Ginny11, I get what you are saying, but I think the whole idea is a bit far-fetched. There are many issues that can cause one photograph to appear quite different from another: lighting, angles, etc. I just think a few here may be diving a little too deeply down into the rabbit hole with this issue. This idea strays a little too far from The Kiss Principle for me. I think neither photo has been altered in any significant way.

SLQ

6/29/2011 12:49:55 pm

Rationalist -- regarding the court records, I may have have a contact would be able to help look for paper records. If you could post the case number or county you found the record in, I can see what I can do.

Cracklin' Charlie

6/29/2011 12:58:22 pm

Jeannette and everyone else,

You are so right to not trust the dates of the photos. But that does not mean that everything Mercede said or says is suspect. If she knows what happened, then she was a part of this hoax, and was therefore just another victim of the Palinator.

Folks, I believe we are wrong to assume that the Palins have used lots of babies to pull off this hoax. They had plenty of babies right there in the house on Lake Lucille. To my mind, there are only 2 babies, brothers Trig and Tripp. The married guy holding the babies in the pictures above is, or thinks he is, the father. Good looking teenage guys don't wear anything that would resemble a wedding ring if they are not married, and they do NOT hold and gently cuddle other people's tiny, fragile babies.

Let's try to trace what must have been the motive, or need for, the hoax. Why would Sarah need to adopt or steal a baby belonging to her daughter? Bristol could have a child even as a unmarried teen and Sarah would not get into much trouble with the religious right. It would be tough, but she could explain it. But what if Bristol delivered baby #1 with Down Syndrome, and conceived baby #2, within a month or two of baby #1's birth? Then Sarah has a big problem.

Would a female governor, with 4 children at home, and definite plans and ambitions for national office, not take every precaution available to not become pregnant? Sarah had to have already known and was probably actively pursuing a VP nomination. Suddenly her daughter, a 17 year old mother of one, becomes pregnant for a second time. This would definitely reflect poorly on the Grizzly Momma, whose family may have been thought of as a counterweight to the lovely Obama family (I know, right?).

She had to come up with a plan. McCain won the nomination, and Sarah put her plan into action. She would fake a pregnancy, and adopt the older baby, Baby #1. She presented the newborn baby #2 as her own for a time, because older brother, baby #1, was too big to be presented as a newborn. But she could not call baby #1 by his name, Tripp, for obvious(now)reasons. So she called him Trig. She probably vaguely remembered seeing that on baby #1's chart, and maybe even for the obvious confusion factor. When called to the convention, Sarah presented baby #1 to the world as Trig Palin.

Levi was only present at Trig's birth, per his sister, so obviously green shirt Levi is a picture with baby #1, as the photo seems to have been taken in the hospital, and we seem to have consensus that "green shirt" Levi is younger.

Could the kitchen picture show Levi meeting his second son for the first time at the Palin home a few weeks after his birthday? Alaska is a big state. Was Levi working on the slope or somewhere, missed his second son's unscheduled and premature birth, and his own birthday, and only got to see him when he was able to get home? Does this tender photo reflect his first meeting with his second son? They had a cake because Levi wasn't home on his birthday?

I believe that kitchen baby "Ruffles" is Tripp. He was born prematurely to Bristol around April 18, 2008, while Sarah was in Texas, which began Sarah's wild ride. Creepy Chuck told a whopper about Sarah's water breaking (would a psychologically normal father tell anyone about his daughter's "water"?). Instead of saying he made a mistake, Sarah, as always, chose to lie, or maybe she couldn't refudiate Chuckles.

Sarah adopted or stole the young couple's child and presented him to the world as her own to save her reputation, and to get the chance to present herself as someone somehow qualified to be vice president of the United States, which in reality, may be the real hoax in this sad story.

SLQ

6/29/2011 01:05:50 pm

Rationalist -- never mind. I found it. I will see what I can find, but I'm not hopeful. That is a municipal court (city court), so not likely to be a civil family law issue.

6/29/2011 01:27:10 pm

Could Palin herself, or a family friend, have performed a ceremony so that they were "married in the eyes of God," and never mind the legal niceties?
It would certainly make the divorce easier, if it was never exactly legal to start with.

Laura Novak link

6/29/2011 01:30:13 pm

Cracklin' Charlie: I think you've got it. Makes a lot of sense. "I'll adopt him. No one will ever have to know."

Floyd M. Orr link

6/29/2011 01:34:22 pm

Cracklin Charlie, you have presented quite a detailed scenario. You are probably aware that I presented the theory that Ruffles is Tripp in Paradigm Shift; however, as I explained in the book, I do not believe that theory quite as strongly as I think there are three babies. Ruffles is the one who has disappeared. Round Ear is the one most of us know as Trig, and Tripp is the youngest, although his birth date was certainly suspicious.

There are three variables that push me toward the Ruffles is Tripp theory: (1) Gryphen's Tripp before he was Trig statement; (2) the concept that two babies are involved in the hoax is strange enough; and (3) the photo of Tripp with Levi appearing so young in the shot including Keith Johnston. The variables that push me back in the other direction are the many photos of a baby presented as Tripp of apparently the correct age to have been born at the beginning of 2009. I think he was born later than stated, but they moved the date up to match the official statement that he could not possibly be Bristol's due to the apparently required gestation period after 4/18/08.

Although you seem to be a deeply intelligent thinker, I disagree that the CINO (Christians In Name Only) voters would really care that much if Bristol had two babies instead of only one. I also think that an engagement was involved, if not a wedding, between Levi and Bristol. I think it is much more likely that Ruffles was born with FAS and that diagnosis was unacceptable, but it gave Sarah the DS idea, so she had CBJ locate a DS baby of the appropriate age for the scam.

Let's say that I am wrong and you are right. How do you explain the many small baby photos and videos presented as Tripp, such as his video introduction on the Greta S. show? If Christian girls across America are making pregnancy pacts, why do you think two illegitimate babies is politically so much worse than one? Are you familiar with the Quiverfull movement? As long as they are white Christians, these people do not care how many they pop out to eventually destroy our environment. Lastly, I think the motive behind the whole mess was not to cover for a daughter, but to secure the VP position by apparently not aborting a DS child. I am open to more of your thoughts.

alexis

6/29/2011 01:58:46 pm

@Cracklin' Charlie

Interesting theory, however I would like to know how you would account for bristol being photographed looking pregnant during the 2008 campaign?

If I understand you theory correctly then Trig would have been born between july-sep,2007 and Trip/ruffles- april, 2008 premature?

Punkinbugg

6/29/2011 02:38:54 pm

I have a correction to my post. "If you believe the Palin story, it's the wee hours of Saturday 4/19/08." should say "wee hours of Friday 4/18/08."

She flew back to ANC on 4/17/08.

The baby was "born" on 4/18/08... into the loving arms of her teenage daughter's boyfriend. Ew?

Cracklin' Charlie

6/29/2011 02:43:14 pm

alexis,

Yes, you do understand my theory correctly. In my mind, that is the only reason for the "Wild Ride",and explains the need for Sarah to take one of Bristol's children. It also explains the pictures that we have seen of Levi's tenderness toward these boys.

And I guess I would explain Bristol's appearance as post-partum weight gain, or even the "empathy belly". But did we really see Bristol that much during the campaign? I remember a lot of Willow and Piper, but not so much Bristol, or Track.

I can't believe that I spend so much time going over this, but it really does bother me. If what I have suggested is anywhere close to the truth, I have to admit that I have great sympathy for Bristol Palin, mean girl or not. If true, can you just imagine what it must have been like for this child? Seventeen years old, pregnant while the mother of a newborn DS child, a crazy-ass bitch of a mom, who publicly stole your child, and then trotted Bristol onto the national political stage, and told everyone she was pregnant in order to protect Sarah's reputation. These are the kind of situations that create people like Sarah and Bristol Palin.

One more important observation: if my scenario is true, I would like to state here that I think Bristol seems to have done a remarkable job taking care of these two boys. I think she is probably their main caregiver when at home, and they both look fairly happy and healthy, considering the challenges they both faced from birth, and they seem comfortable with her. I would like to commend her for taking good care of the boys.

Cracklin' Charlie

6/29/2011 03:47:30 pm

Floyd,

I did not know you had presented the Tripp as Ruffles theory, after three years of this, I wish I would have heard about that sooner. I have not heard of Paradigm Shift. But maybe if I explain how I came to my conclusion, which has only come to me recently, you will understand how I came to believe that this may be what happened.

There were always three things that, for me, did not make sense:

1. Why did Sarah need to go on a "wild ride" to deliver this child?

2. Why did Levi appear so fatherly toward the child at the RNC?

3. Why does the size of both children not match their given age?

When I saw the post on Immoral Minority that showed Levi in green shirt with baby, the answers to all my questions came to me almost immediately. Levi has 2 children. He kissed Trig like that because Trig was his son. And Sarah had to do the wild ride because baby #2 came early. She didn't expect him for several more weeks. And the babies don't look their age because they are a lot older than their given age.

And like you, I think they were married. And I have heard all I care to about the quiverfull movement, but this is Sarah Palin we are talking about here, bitch is crazy, and she would not hesitate to throw anyone under the bus to protect her reputation. I don't think it was so much the number of children, but Bristol's age, and how that would reflect on "Governor Sarah Palin".TM. The Palins were built up as the all-American frontier family. I totally agree with you about Sarah's motives. She was not protecting Bristol's reputation, she was protecting her own, as always. Even if none of my scenario is true, any woman that would trot her daughter out onto that stage, (and especially if she was just heavy, and not pregnant) and tell the whole world that she was an unwed mother, would not hesitate to throw Bristol under any vehicle that was convenient. I think it could be true that she was going for some pro-life cred, but any woman with four kids already had that cred. And she may have chosen Trig for that reason, but I think it's more likely that he was chosen because it fit into the hoax better. She couldn't adopt baby #2, because then how would they explain baby #1? They knew for it to work, that Baby #2 would have to pose as Trig for at least a little while, because of his size.

And I really don't think there are three babies, that is just one more than they need. Can't imagine Sarah wanting any more children to take care of.

And I don't see anything in your theory that is wrong, that is what theories are for, to advance knowledge. Once facts become available, new theories are formulated, and the process continues, so there is really no wrong or right. Facts are Facts. Our theories really match up pretty well, they could both be tweaked if new info comes to light. And somehow, I think it might. I hope so, anyway.

Lidia17

6/29/2011 09:23:14 pm

@Rationalist, I remembering hearing on several occasions from commenters that birth records, marriage records are sealed in AK for a substantial amount of time, like 50-100 years.

I do tend to think that Bristol and Levi really were married, as much as Track and Britta and/or Sarah and Todd are 'married', anyway. Who knows what these people really get up to?

--
I think something similar to Cracklin' Charlie's scenario will come to light, but I do think there are at least 3 babies involved (4 if you count the animated DS boy on the book tour). Tripp and the kid mostly known as Tri-G both have normal ears, and the baby shower baby (Ruffles) has clear, severe, defects.

CC's conjecture that the Triggy-Bear photos were taken after May 3 is certainly possible.

===
As usual, being a "Photoshop person", I do NOT think the tattoo was photoshopped onto Mercede's picture. Too complicated and too hard to get right. You would also have to have gotten the tattoo art lettering FROM somewhere (another picture of Levi with tattoo) to get it right.

If you look at Levi's nudie pix from September 2009, the tattoo still looks quite crisp and nearly fake, even after more than a year.

lilly lily

6/30/2011 12:06:03 am

I agree that Mercede probably had a scrapbbooking box, and added the baby feet, but doubt the Johnston tatoo was photoshopped.

I think the tatoo is Levi asserting himself since Sarah is so manipulating.

Hey folks, I'm me, Levi Johnston, and you can't push me around like you are doing.

Yes, Bristol may not have been pregnant at the RNC but expressing mucho milk for the babies. She is chunky now and doesn't have much of a figure at her slimmest.

Yes Gryphens image of a silenced Bristol (all those perks, money, plastic surgery, celebrity interviews, a reality show are bribes to keep her mouth shut)

Two kids, and Bristol was a bit of a mean girl so her sniping at Levi now is simply a progression of her character.

She isn't bright. She is a good mother, unlike Sarah.

I do feel some pity for both those kids. I do think they were married by Sarah, much like Britta and Track are now, to cover for a pregnancy.

Talk about soap operas, (which I never watched though one was filmed in my town), and scheming villainesses that are over the top lying, cheating and manipulating everyone around them.

They do exist, and Sarah Palin is one of the strangest.

cuzIsaidso

6/30/2011 12:14:19 am

I think these photos were taken within a relatively short time of each other, not a year apart as some have conjectured. Either Levi darkened/dyed whatever was still blonde after the haircut or the photoshop wiz behind photo#2 erased evidence of the old highlights when he/she added footprints, etc.

The cake and candles in background have always bugged me. Are they a photoshop addition, too? Added to confuse the date of photo? It's an odd spot for a cake-an edge of a table? Just a thought...

I'm inclined to go with the theory that the tattoo is a photoshop addition.
Left photo has several possible explanations. Baby could be at Mat-Su for Palin birth hoax hand-off or picture could be on his actual release day or another of his in-hospital days. As a tiny, special-needs baby, he had many of those, I'm sure.
Right photo is taken when Levi is able to invite over his mom and sister to his residence at the Palin's to meet the baby.

The backstory about photo on right being from Levi's 18th birthday could be fiction-a story made up to fit Sarah Palin's hoax agenda, making it seem this baby was that small on May 3 when the picture was taken much earlier. Photoshop alterations done to add "proof" of story told at the time.

So, we don't know when either picture was taken but neither have to be from April 18th - May 3rd. In fact, both photos could have been taken before "adoption" was even a done deal. They don't relate to Heath grandparents in hallway picture-and don't have to. That picture was staged for a press release and could be any time/any day/any baby.

These pictures do, however, relate to size of the teeny guy in Palin's shower photos...so the May-ish timeline is not off the table, either! sigh...

Floyd M. Orr link

6/30/2011 02:23:23 am

Charlie, I do agree with much of your theory, but there is one part that pushed me away from it two years ago. When Bristol appears the first time with a baby on Greta's show approximately 2/19/09. These are the same photos that were referenced here a few days ago in an earlier post. The other problem I have with your theory is of course Ruffles. Neither Trig nor Tripp has a wrinkled right ear. This is the leading issue that makes the story include at least three babies.

Please pardon me while I plug the book again. Paradigm Shift contains the details of all the more plausible Babygate theories. Most of this particular material in the book was edited from many of my earlier blog posts. Due to the complex, theoretical, and mercurial nature of the story, the material has been discussed on several blogs for nearly three years. This information is presented in a somewhat more organized format in the book, and most of all, Babygate is described as only one cog in a very large wheel. The whole affair has been planned, following decades of situational development, yet without certain serendipitous events, the Babygate hoax would never have succeeded on a national level.

The photo of Keith Johnston, Levi and baby Tripp led me to the Ruffles Is Tripp theory. Levi looks incredibly young in that particular photo. I definitely think this (your) scenario is plausible. The thing that pushes me right back to the three (or more) babies theory is that Tripp does appear to be more or less his stated age in many photographs, beginning with his television debut. What I had hoped from my earlier response to you is that you would address this situation. I am still hoping you will do so. If you see something I don't, I am all ears!

7/1/2011 07:21:35 am

Floyd,
Do you have a link to the photo of Levi with his Dad and baby Tripp? I remember seeing the photo, but I haven't seen it in a while. Thanks.

Floyd M. Orr link

7/1/2011 08:36:40 am

Jo, here is a link to the photo in my own Picasa folder. I have never posted a link to anything from Picasa before. If it does not work for you, please let me know. At this point in time, I could not find this photo at any other location. If you send me your e-mail address, I can send you a direct attachment from my files if you need it.

https://picasaweb.google.com/HondaCL160/PalinBabygate?authkey=Gv1sRgCI7MsuSrzpy_Aw#5506805415175672786

7/1/2011 09:32:57 am

7/1/2011 09:37:03 am

I hit enter too soon with the last 'empty' comment. I was able to access the photo just fine, thanks Floyd.

I have always thought that Levi looked very young in that photo, much younger than at the convention, therefore much younger than he was at the time of Tripp's supposed birth in Dec. '08. Also, how tall is Keith Johnston? He looks huge next to Levi (even though Levi is standing to the back somewhat).

Cracklin' Charlie

7/1/2011 02:09:45 pm

Floyd,

Sorry it has taken so long to get back, apparently I hit a button on my keyboard that killed my computer for a couple of days. I had to wait for my IT specialist (my daughter) to fix it for me. It was most embarrassing.

I would like to address a couple of points from your comment. As evidenced above, I have no computer skills. I have not actually seen the picture of Tripp on 2/19/09 since formulating this theory, so I can't speak to that. But I have seen the picture of Tripp from an interview with Matt Lauer that was from April or May of 2009, and there is NO way that child is 4 months old. He looks at least one year old. And it is definitely Tripp. And he is definitely drugged. Most likely, I think, to keep him from doing something a one year old might do, like smiling (lots of teeth), or talking (knowing how to talk).

As for the ears, I suppose it is possible for them to have found some doctor willing to help them repair the defect. They do seem to know how to order up some plastic surgery. If Tripp was born in April, 2008, and was last used/photographed in May, 2008, then they had until at least 2/19/09 before anyone (publicly) had seen him. And I have always thought that there have never been many photos released of this child at all. Have you any pictures of his infancy? Without photos to look at, it is hard to determine what happened to his ears.

I know that these are not conclusive answers, but I do appreciate your questions and input. It helps me decide where to proceed in my research.

Floyd M. Orr link

7/1/2011 11:50:11 pm

Cracklin' Charlie, as I have stated, both here and in the book, your theory is basically a version of what I think is the second most likely scenario. The problem still lies with Tripp's official introduction on Greta's show. Even this theory would have to include more than two babies because the baby in Bristol's arms is no older than 2-3 months. How do you explain that? As for the ear surgery possibility at such a young age, the evidence heavily outnumbers that likelihood. Many blog posts have detailed the evidence against this, from the concept of a doctor doing the surgery in the first place to the chance that the wrinkled ear could be turned into a perfectly smooth one. Unless you can produce new evidence, I am keeping my money riding on the three-baby, Ruffles/Trig/Tripp theory.

search here link

7/1/2013 04:43:18 pm

Yes, Levi looks really pale and scared in the second picture. The baby is really cute and lays very close to Levi. The way he holds the baby shows how careful and lovable he is towards the baby. Thanks for sharing.

Comments are closed.

Babes In Levi's Arms

Laura Novak

Blogs I Read

Categories

Archives