Bill McAllister et al.,

6/9/2011

While preparing to converse with Brad Scharlott about the so-called “Gusty photos” I did what any reporter would do. I attempted to reach the subjects of the photo and ask their side of the story. I was not keen to draw any conclusions from the two pictures, though I did have some questions about them - things that just did not add up in my mind. Still, I remained open to all possible explanations.

My efforts proved futile. Dan Carpenter, once a cameraman at KTUU in Anchorage, and seen on the governor’s right, no longer works at the station. His Twitter account @dcarpenter101 indicates he now lives in Mexico (you can’t make this stuff up). I was given his cell phone and I made two attempts to reach him: 5/26 at 11:14am and 6/1 at 3:17pm. I never heard back.

Andrea Gusty who appears in this photo, still works for KTVA. I sent her emails on 5/25 at 4:50pm and on 5/29 at 1:08pm. I also phoned and left voice mail messages on 5/26 at 2:30pm and 6/2 at 11:22am. She did not respond to any of my messages.

The third person I contacted was Bill McAllister, a KTUU reporter at the time these photos were taken, who had also reportedly been approached to work in media relations for the governor, a position he assumed two months later.

Mr. McAllister returned my email promptly. My intent was clear: to hear the people involved describe the event because I was open to the idea there was a perfectly reasonable explanation for the photos.

I said I had some questions of my own, beyond any Internet noise, about what I see in them. But I really wanted to hear what Mr. McAllister had to say about the moments surrounding the pictures.

We corresponded four times. Each time, I tried to reassure Mr. McAllister that I would send him a Word.doc with my questions. He would type in his answers and upload the doc to me. I would then add more questions as they arose. He would see the final copy before I would publish it to my site.

This is unheard of in the world of journalism. I was bending over backwards to be fair and tried to reassure him that he could tell his story in this document.

In each email, Bill McAllister expressed multiple feelings on the matter, and the people involved, though our correspondence is off-the-record and I cannot divulge more.

The last time, I offered to take his final email and use it, in place of an interview, as a self-contained statement. I would copy and paste it exactly as he wrote it.

The stipulations he returned to me were unacceptable.

I look forward then, to publishing my subsequent conversation with Brad Scharlott.

125 Comments

comeonpeople

6/9/2011 01:02:32 am

Looking forward to it.
It's hard ot get anything done on my days off with all the upcoming events abd great posts recently! Good thing I'm organized....
FWIW, it does seem possible that the picture of Sarah at her desk with a sleeping Tri-G from Bailey's book and The Gusty photo were taken the same day.

6/9/2011 01:08:14 am

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much! (If, after that exchange, McAllister can still be considered a gentleman.)

Molly

6/9/2011 01:27:44 am

Wow, it sure appears that he is hiding something. If this picture was taken when Gusty said it was, then why not just come out and say it?

6/9/2011 01:33:56 am

Looking forward to your and Brad's discussion.

I really hope you'll put on your to-do list (not that you haven't done enough already) a discussion with obstetrician(s) about the March 14 flat belly picture and whether there is ANY way a baby who will 6+ pounds in a month could be in there.

viola

6/9/2011 01:38:56 am

Is Bill McAllister the man standing to Sarah's left? What about the grey-haired video cameraman?

Thanks, Laura, for providing a new, cool and clear approach to all of this.

6/9/2011 01:39:59 am

Hmm. If we play 20 questions can you give us yes/no answers without breaking your journalistic integrity? For instance, were these photos taken for the sole purpose of providing proof that Sarah Palin was pregnant In 2008?

Yellowgirl

6/9/2011 01:43:23 am

Wow oh wow! I understand your conversation was off record, but can you reveal the actual conditions he wanted that you couldn't accept? And, you said he "expressed multiple feelings on the matter." Can you say whether these were all *consistent* feelings, or inconsistent?

Also, who is the camera-holder in the Gusty photo? I don't think that's McAllister is it? Maybe he'd talk?

Floyd M. Orr link

6/9/2011 01:49:44 am

Excellent, Laura! You are really accomplishing something here. I, too, have had all my requests for communication ignored, not from these particular people, but from others involved in Babygate. I like the way you have spelled out your contact dates and times. Yep, these clowns are definitely hiding something!

Conscious at last

6/9/2011 01:53:25 am

All these media folks are afraid of a little light--- hmmm.... I thought that they craved it!!!!

mumimor

6/9/2011 02:09:26 am

Wow!
If it's as simple as Gusty claimed, why is it so complicated???

Cracklin' Charlie

6/9/2011 02:22:00 am

Good work, Laura,

I believe these pictures may be the key to the unraveling. I believe that they were taken just prior to the RNC. Sarah's face is so much fuller than the pictures confirmed to be from April 2008.

Hair down (when never down before) to make her face seem thinner to match confirmed April 2008 photos? A borrowed newborn for tender moments photo of mom and baby working on budgets? They were in and out of that building in 5 minutes.

They really thought they could pull this off, didn't they? Things might have worked out much better if they had just told the truth.

DebinOH

6/9/2011 02:27:27 am

I have to believe that these people wish they had never ever heard of Sarah Palin;)

Look forward to your next chat with Brad.

Elizabeth

6/9/2011 02:34:03 am

Once again, these are the only pictures in existence the portray a sitting governor as being pregnant, as she claimed to be, and no one can confirm, deny or validate the history behind the pictures? Hmmmm.

We must never forget that these are the pictures that were used to convince 'doubters' that Palin was indeed pregnant with Trig and anyone who questioned the unbelievable and mind-boggling events the preceded and followed the 'miraculous' event were nothing more than tinfoil wearing conspiracy theorists.

Thank you Laura for keeping these pictures front and center. Palin hates these pictures. She hates these pictures because they are documented proof of her fraud. She probably did not want to strap on that empathy belly and produce pictures but she had little choice.

I don't know when these pictures were taken because face it, that is the beauty of an 'empathy belly'. You can strap it on at anytime and voila - you are pregnant. My thought is that these pictures were taken as insurance but were carefully hidden away in the event the unsuspecting public became too nosy and then they were mysteriously whipped out in a very suspect way to shut up the doubters. And that is exactly what happened and guess what, it worked!

These pictures shut down a Daily Kos thread. These pictures convinced Factcheck.org. These pictures were plastered everywhere as living proof that Palin was not lying about being pregnant.

Thank you Laura for keeping the light on these pictures. They tell a big part of the story and the one thing any one of us who have observed this farce from back on Aug 2008 can tell is that Palin does not like people talking about these pictures or questioning them.

It is one thing to quietly adopt your teenage daughter's baby to save face for the family (if this is what really happened.) It's quite another to strap on a fake pregnancy belly to prove to the world that you were pregnant with a DS baby.

Palin did the latter.

SLQ

6/9/2011 02:43:41 am

Very interesting. Looking forward to the post.

Yellowgirl

6/9/2011 02:58:51 am

Another thought: could you contact Factcheck with your findings? Since you are a respected journalist, and were stonewalled about the simple background of these "proof positive pics" that Factcheck used..... maybe they'd take another look at it?

Conscious at last

6/9/2011 03:00:02 am

Trying to shake up my memory cells here-

The name "Erik" was associated with these photos. I think (?) when Audrey or someone investigated that name it was either:

the name of a husband or relative of Gusty or Stapleton

OR

the name of a town associated with one of these two women or someone else in the inner circle at that time...

Hey out there- does anyone else remember that?

6/9/2011 03:09:09 am

Most of the focus has naturally been on Palin - but there are several other people in these photos.

If they were taken in August and not in April, is there any way of determining how these other three - Gusty, McAllister and the probably-in-Mexico Dan Carpenter - how they generally appeared in April of 2008? For example, had one of the men cut himself shaving? Or was Gusty's hair a little longer or a little shorter? Were they all about the same pale color? Weight gains/weight losses?

LTA

6/9/2011 03:18:48 am

Laura you are right, you simply can not make this stuff up! This is like a James Patterson book!

I am so impressed with you guys for putting together the ArcXIX user name significance. Just as I strongly felt the user name itself had to have something obvious about it, I feel the identity of the DK writer is just waiting for us to find it...like so many pieces of this story, I'm sure there is something just below the surface waiting to be uncovered.

I am going to have to agree with Crackin Charlie... I think these photos were taken around the RNC. If you look at Sarah Palin in the photos allegedly taken days before or days after the Gusty pics...she did not look like this until the RNC got hold of her.

Laura, you have certainly put us on pins and needles...I can't wait to hear what you & the prof have to say! And I hope you can tell us a little more about these "conditions" McAllister tried to enforce!

molly malone

6/9/2011 03:33:57 am

Laura, I greatly appreciate your methodical approach toward untangling the Trig web woven by Palin.

Even though I've been trying to follow this bizarre hoax from the get go, there is such a jumble of information--concrete evidence and probably solid info so intermixed with the improbable, the impossible, and rumors, guesses, misdirection and lies--that I get bleary-brained trying to sort it all out and keep it all straight.

Your one-step-at-a-time approach is truly helpful.

Ottoline

6/9/2011 03:38:24 am

Bravo, Laura, for sticking to it!

I've looked at more photos and it's not true that she did not wear hair down during the fake pregnancy era -- she did, but it was a different look. Not as carefully combed out as on BOTH the photo sessions of interest (Palin+baby in office and the Gusty photos).

The original Gusty session is suspect because it is the only time Palin had that giant belly.

The Bailey office photo is suspect because hair/clothes make it seem to have been taken the same day as Gusty's, the baby is one we have not seen in other photos (and looks too old and too swollen).

I'd still like to know:
--What exact day Bailey says he took this photo?
--What time of day is the Gusty shoot scheduled on Palin's calender?
--What proof is there that the "set record straight" Gusty news video actually aired or did not air in April?

My guess is that Bailey will remain vague about date of his photo, there is no hour associated with the Gusty shoot on Apr 13, and we will find no proof either way re the Gusty news video. I wish a forensic news-video expert could look at this video. There must be a way to show it is a fake. A fake like the CBJ medical letter, which lists none of Trig's medical complications at birth, has Piper's birthday wrong, and all the other et ceteras.

Sunshine1970

6/9/2011 03:41:28 am

Wow. Very interesting. If there's nothing surrounding these photos, then it would be no big deal to say anything about them at all. But with the trouble you're going through to get any answers says to me that there's something to hide...Very interesting.

Ottoline

6/9/2011 03:41:56 am

V - At the time the Gusty rebuttal came out, I looked at a number of Gusty's online videos to see if I could find hair length inconsistent with April and consistent with Aug -- but I did not succeed.

Sunshine1970

6/9/2011 03:43:27 am

@Conscious at last. Yes, it was Erik and a zip code is what was deduced by Audrey and her team. I don't remember what town the zip code was to, though.

6/9/2011 03:44:47 am

I think Palin seems much more tanned in the Gusty photo than she did a few days later down in Texas.

Of course, it could just be the lighting or the make-up ... still ...

I must point out that XIX is 19, not 21

6/9/2011 03:57:43 am

I reread the post by ArcXIX last night and what struck me was how detailed and cohesive the story was considering it was posted the day after McCain announced Palin as the VP. Most of the major points of the story as we know it today were there: the rumors of Bristol's pregnancy in 2007, her abscence from school for months at the end of 2007, the pictures in which she seems to have a baby bump during the same time period, Palin's non-pregnant appearance (supported by pictures from Feb. and March 2008), the wild ride story - all within one day of her being announced McCain's VP pick.

Has the identity of ArcXIX ever been disclosed? Today, it is faily easy to find all of this information. But who had access to all of this information and the ability to organize it in a coherent story and publish it within 24 hours of McCain's announcing her as his VP pick? With the Gusty picture ready to post within days after the story blew up on the internet?

6/9/2011 03:59:01 am

@Conscious at last. The named used was Erik + the zipcode for Gusty's home town of Bethel, I think. Prof. Scharlott thinks McAllister posted it. One of the Alaska journalists investigating this story that summer was named Erickson, so he may have gotten the photo from Gusty.

FrostyAK

6/9/2011 03:59:56 am

Not the least bit surprised about the stonewalling. It was McAlllister who threatened Brad because of his research paper.

The spiral of silence around palin continues, and one needs to wonder why. Is she so powerful that all of these people are truly afraid of her? Or, as with the cables revealed by Wikileaks, are they protesting so much because they will be highly embarrassed when the truth comes out?

FrostyAK

6/9/2011 04:12:16 am

Another thing, thanks for taking the time to approve the comments that get through. It will make for lots less confusion when the 'palin fairy tale trolls' and those who post under multiple ID's are left out of the conversation.

mistah charley, ph.d.

6/9/2011 04:15:59 am

Drudge mentioned this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/conversations/help-investigate-the-palin-emails/2011/06/08/AGHIGMNH_story.html

Help investigate the Palin e-mails

By Ryan Kellett, Thursday, June 9, 12:18 PM

More than 24,000 e-mail messages sent to and from Sarah Palin during her tenure as Alaska's governor will be released Friday. Join The Post in digging through them. We are looking for 100 organized and diligent readers who will work alongside Post reporters to analyze, contextualize, and research the e-mails. Think of it as spending some time in our newsroom.

Our hope is that working together, we can efficiently find interesting information and extract new stories that will lead to further investigation. We don’t know what we’ll find, but we want you to be ready and open for the challenge.

You will communicate with us virtually and work in small teams to make light work of reviewing the e-mail threads. Notice the patterns. Identify recipients and senders. Connect specific e-mails to larger themes and events. We’ll give you a sense of what to look out for, but the hope is that your team can tackle the challenge together in a collaborative way that our journalists alone cannot. And in fact, we are selecting just 100 people because we want to make real use of your talents and trust you to use teamwork to your advantage.

To get involved, we ask that you fill out this form that asks you state your case for why you’d be the right person to help report this story in the days following the e-mail release (Friday, June 10 onward). There are no specific requirements other than the time availability to help and access to an Internet-connected computer. We will select people who we think will work well on a team and have a good sense for details that might be important. Sign-up by Friday morning to be considered. Be sure to note in your submission if you’re applying with others who you want to work with (but each person must submit their own form). If you are selected, you’ll receive further instructions about how we will approach our reporting.

K.M.R

6/9/2011 04:20:33 am

Well, I guess my early-morning-before-my-cup-of-coffee idea on the last thread, suggesting that Wholy Mary may be Sherry Johnston, didn't go over too well since no further comment was made.
I know Wholy Mary spelled many names wrong, even her own, but I would think she might do that, intentionally, to throw people off. She's probably afraid to talk about anything Palin while also being ready to burst with what she knows, so she's dropping little clues.

As for today's post (thank you Laura), I won't be as far fetched so, here goes...

Analysis of the Gusty photo has been going on for as long as it has been out there but I do think after Gusty did her bit at the news station, examination of whether or not these pictures were altered, went south.

My eyes see that Sarah is looking off into space. It looks to be a cut-out from an entirely different scene, almost as though she was dropped into the pictures (photoshopped in), especially the one with Gusty holding the mike. Perhaps a cut out was taken from another picture and then strategically placed to make it look like she were in the room during an interview. If not, then why is she looking off into space?

From the Palin Deceptions blog: http://tinyurl.com/3ofnr4u

"... and this was something that the expert brought up on his own (I had asked him only to look at the photos at the pixel level) in Image 1, Gov. Palin's body position seems, in his word, "peculiar." Many others have noted this. She is simply not facing where she should be if this picture is what it represents itself to be - a still shot of a news interview in progress. Even if, while Gusty was speaking, Palin's attention was drawn to something off camera and she glanced away, her body should still be facing the camera person squarely. But Palin's body is facing down the hall, quite nearly away from the cameraman, her expression almost unfocused. She does not appear in any way to be part of the action around her."

Ottoline

6/9/2011 04:23:45 am

I just read the DK piece. When I read it long ago, I knew so little, so I was not struck by how well it is all stated there. So many points are stated correctly, although MANY commenters repeatedly get them wrong: like the number of DS births being way greater with teens vs. the frequency being way greater in older mothers. And just every point is stated as people like me only NOW know to be the case, whereas ArcXIX got it right, all of it, way back then. No false notes. Wow!

V: considering the intelligence evident in Arc's writing, I think s/he would be aware of the usual XIX=19, but s/he would also seem well able to do a little pun on it, as in X+I+X=21. Someone else made this point earlier.

Ottoline

6/9/2011 04:25:08 am

Laura -- I'm all for moderation, too. So tedious for each of us to have to wade through all the static.

alexis

6/9/2011 04:29:35 am

Thanks Laura,excellent post !

Is McAllister the same guy holding the video camera????

Who Knows?

6/9/2011 04:40:00 am

What I can't figure out is why this demon In "naughty monkey pumps" hasn't been brought to justice yet.

Anon55

6/9/2011 04:41:29 am

Wow, this is getting Shakespearean.

Bill McAllister has cancer and his wife Christina Holmgren filed a protective order against him. http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/pa.urd/pamw2000.docket_lst?58600054

Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnston is apparently in hiding.

And meanwhile, Sarah Palin just closed on a two million dollar house in Arizona and continues to mint money hand over fist (like the Kardashians) with her "brand."

It's always the "little people" who get hurt it seems.

daisydem

6/9/2011 04:47:15 am

So if the Gusty pics and the pics we recently have seen of her with Trig resting on her shoulder were filmed the same day ... then it is all a big, big hoax (which of course most of us who have been here for over 2 years believe anyway) - but obviously, in terms of McCain's camp hastily contrived cover-up: a huge photo-op with Palin, pregnant tummy, baby on shoulder was staged in addition to computers being scrubbed of any actual pictures of her from Spring of 2008 to Fall of 2008 - said pictures of the staged photoshoot were then posted as though they had been there all the time. The baby shower was probably staged at the same time. Have you talked to anyone who was at the baby shower?

mitch

6/9/2011 04:50:50 am

Help me out here. What do these pictures prove or disprove as far as the faked pregnancy is concerned? Cliff notes version is OK.
Thanks!

Ottoline

6/9/2011 04:55:37 am

Thx mistah charley for the WashPo email offer. I just signed up. Would be fun to participate.

Karen

6/9/2011 04:56:08 am

I believe he must have said: "Nothing to see here. Move along."

Not suspicious at all. It is completely logical that someone who took an innocent picture would object to having any statement whatsoever regarding the photo attributed to him or her.

If Ms. Gutsy is too busy to return your calls or emails, perhaps you could reach out to the station's news director or producer for questions specifically related to the footage. Heck, poor Andrea may have fallen getting out of the shower at home and may be trapped between the shower and the commode for all we know. Perhaps he could send someone to check to see that she is alright?

silver

6/9/2011 04:59:52 am

Laura, last evening I was disappointed when someone commented that they considered the discussion of the Gusty video and Bailey's picture of Sarah and Trig "more distractions" so I thank you for following up on this.

Another interesting incident at the time was the following report by KTUU on April 7, 2008. I posted it on Palingates at the time because I questioned why the reporter made the claim that Palin's due date had been moved up to May 18 when that was the estimated date of birth originally released. The article was later removed from the KTUU site so the link no longer works.

by Bill McAllister
Monday, April 7, 2008

JUNEAU, Alaska -- Gov. Sarah Palin, who is about eight months pregnant, confirmed Monday that her fifth child is a boy.

The governor also reports her due date has been moved up to May 18.

Palin and her husband, Todd, say they have not settled on a name for their second boy.

Ketchikan High School students recently sent her a large card with suggested names.

The Palins' oldest child is son Track, 18, who serves in the U.S. Army.

They also have three daughters, Bristol, Willow and Piper.

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=8132210

grammy97

6/9/2011 05:20:44 am

There was some more serious study of this photo at

http://thoughtsfromveracity.blogspot.com/2009/08/gusty-photo-when-was-it-taken.html

I'm sorry I don't know how to put the line under the link. But the link is still active: I just went over and re-read it.

lilly lily

6/9/2011 05:22:01 am

A good idea.

I never was interested in the Gusty shots, because all the people involved were not forthcoming. Sarah truly has a grip on people, or perhaps they knew they were being used, allowed it, and then were trapped in her spider web of lies.

Currently she is being ridiculed with good reason on every level over that fake patriotic bus tour of National Historical Monuments and sites. She will be investigated on a number of levels as well as being the deserving butt of every form of comedy and joke.

She has her cult to cushion her ego. Sooner or later she will break down. I hope for our sakes it is sooner.

But, I doubt anyone would like to be in her shoes for the next few weeks.

curiousagain

6/9/2011 05:34:04 am

I'm glad you posted how to comment here.

I'm confused by all this. I do get the idea of the Gusty photo being faked. Even with it the change in her body shape in a week is profound. I'm just a guy who has watched two kids grow inside a woman about the same size as Sara and believe me, everyone knew she was pregnant by five months and our first child was just over five pounds and she was seven weeks early. So I've always been suspicious of her claims and when I saw the kid on Bristol's shoulder at the RNC it definitely looked a lot older than my then munchkin did at the same age.

Now, the Gusty shot. I've read, without attribution, that Sara has some grooming problems so it would not be beyond reason for her to wear the same clothes over and over - the red leather jacket she "returned" to the RNC after the election was lost is proof enough and that she wore the same tee shirt on her bus trip also adds to that theory.

The hair though gets interesting because photo's of her time as Gov show a rather unkempt woman who suddenly became a fashion and hair maven after a little time with a coach, dresser and stylist.

What bothers me most of all is the resistance to speaking with you from all the principles involved. Here again, it isn't what they say but what they don't say. Just like the whole Trig thing, show an official Birth Certificate, explain the folded ear and the apparent different faces of Trig in several photos and I'll be convinced. Otherwise I remain convinced there is something really ugly here and the failure of anyone in her harem to come forward and set the record straight is completely out of character for someone who fights tooth and nail against everyone. It's not her loyalty to her kids, she's already demonstrated she will use them for her own aggrandizement. She's completely shameless that way so since she used him so shamelessly at the outset why did she stop?

I admire all of you for keeping this on the front burner. I think you are close, even closer than you know. I believe it will take one person, still quiet, to come forward and bust the very weak story wide open. Keep plugging

Who Knows?

6/9/2011 05:36:45 am

So can one dream that the "LSM's spiral of silence"
will start to unwind tomorrow with the release of the infamous emails? I never could understand why that silence was SO deafening. Maybe NOW people will pay attention to that Prof's research paper.

Cracklin' Charlie

6/9/2011 05:43:43 am

silver,
sounds like someone was trying to distract you FROM those particular images. Hmmm.....

I also wanted to mention that I saw a photo of $arah from campaign time today that I was wondering about. It was a backstage (candid) shot of $arah holding Trig while waiting for a cover photo to be shot with the Palins and McCains. The outfit she wore for that cover photo on People looks suspiciously like the one she wore to her "baby shower". A really nice, well-tailored, pricey-looking black suit. Did she own that suit in April 2008, or did the campaign buy it for her in August? My inquiring mind wants to know.
Something I also found strange - the cover photo used was of Toad and $arah, John and Cindy McCain, and Trig. These two family have a "bunch of kids" between them, and only Trig made it to the cover of People? What gives?

6/9/2011 05:44:22 am

Can you post the photo from Bailey's book (SP at her desk; TriG sleeping on her shoulder) that is mentioned as possibly shot on the same day? Thx

mumimor

6/9/2011 05:44:56 am

The picture from the Bailey book and the Gusty pictures may, or may not have been taken the same day. I don't think they are.

But specially, I don't think the McCain campaign was in on any of this at all. A campaign is just too big an organization with too many diverse people to keep a secret like a faked pregnancy. Also, for what it's worth, it seems that a lot of the McCain people hated the very concept of Palin from the outset, let alone the actual person.

I do think some of the more unbalanced trolls on this and other Palin-related sites may be related to Levi. This family must be badly hurt, and I can imagine they wouldn't articulate their ideas in an academic manner. I can also imagine they are balancing between revealing all and keeping quiet for the children's sake.

Jeff

6/9/2011 05:47:00 am

I don't know if I mentioned it earlier, but in the Andrea Gusty photo/video with Sarah Palin,Gusty is wearing those one-and-a-half-inch to two-inch rubber thong-type sandals which are very, very casual and though a tiny detail, it just doesn't seem to fit the scenario.

It just seemed odd to me that someone like Gusty, an up and comer would wear something like that in-person as a legislative reporter for an live, exclusive on-location interview at the capitol with the governor.

This had to be Gusty's most important scoop of at least the 90-day legislative session. And people do wear business suits at the AK capitol. I verified that by viewing AK State Senate President Gusty Lyda Green's photo album of one of the past AK legislative sessions.

Andrea has since been promoted to co-anchor on the 5:00 PM news and solo anchor on the 10:00pm news. BTW, she actually graduated w a degree in Journalism from Northwestern U., so she's not exactly just some shlepp from Hooterville (of course, no offense intended to any of your Hooterville readers).

Just tell me I'm overly sensitive to those who dress less-than-traditional in professional situations, and I'll check this off my list of things that don't pass the smell test. Otherwise, doesn't that photo/video session just reek of being staged?

Another concern, if the interview was conducted live at 5:00, where are the other persons passing through the hallway, saying "Bye, Guv. Have a good recess and have a nice baby" or whatever you'd say to someone you wouldn't see until June 1st, when Sarah had announced a special legislative session would convene (despite her due date in mid-May)?

I wonder how we could verify the time of day that the legislature adjourned. I'm anxiously awaiting the emails which might contain a few details to tie things like this together.

Ideas, anyone?

LTA

6/9/2011 05:47:21 am

Silver,
Great find! You know what comes to my mind first?

"The governor reports her due date has been moved up to May 18"

Equals

They knew at least ONE OF the babies being offered up to the public was going to be tiny.

Who has a newspaper item written about their changing due date? Also, and this just may be my experience...due dates usually aren't so fluid that late in the pregnancy. My due date was altered by ten days in my first pregnancy but it was because I mistakenly miscalculated the date of my last cycle. It was barely the end of the first trimester when I was given my corrected due date.

By the time the eighth month comes around, there has been a lot of leg bone and head circumference measuring...and a DS baby with cardiac issues being born to a woman over 40 would have probably 20-40% more ultrasounds.

I'd like input from others, but personally I can't remember anyone I know having their due date change by a whole month at the END of the pregnancy. I have known people whose baby was measuring small...but even that did not alter their due date.

And what is it with these people and 18th day of the month due dates, "birth" dates, etc? Seems like Tripp was also "due" December 18th.

Laura Novak link

6/9/2011 05:52:23 am

NYTs also looking for help Friday:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/help-us-investigate-the-sarah-palin-e-mail-records/

Thanks Mister Charly for that WaPo link as well.

akgrrl

6/9/2011 05:58:14 am

Who Knows?: So can one dream that the "LSM's spiral of silence" will start to unwind tomorrow with the release of the infamous emails? I never could understand why that silence was SO deafening. Maybe NOW people will pay attention to that Prof's research paper.

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

I doubt anything will start to unwind until the ~2,500 emails that AREN'T being released are leaked. Unredacted.

ginny

6/9/2011 06:00:23 am

Like Yellowgirl, I was wondering if we could at least be told the conditions that he demanded that were unacceptable? While I still have a hard time believing that the video footage+photo were faked OR not aired when Gusty claims they were, I am thinking more and more about this: as I said in comments on the previous post, the people at the news station are not medical personnel and would NOT be bound by HIPAA law. So if in fact there is something "not right" about the Gusty video/photo, all it would take is ONE person "in the know" to spill it, and it could be the first domino falling. And, if there is something "not right" about the Gusty footage, Palin & Co. would be most worried about this VERY weak link in the otherwise unbreakable chain that is locking away the truth about Trig. They would know that anyone not in the family OR a very close friend/staffer AND not bound by HIPAA is the most likely person to break their silence. Even something as seemingly trivial as a lie about the date footage was aired (or not) or recorded would be enough to get the ball rolling.
So, who knows?

Viola

6/9/2011 06:04:25 am

Thanks Grammy for the Veracity blog link and its discussion of this photo's significance. (I miss Veracity.)

To me, the most important thing about it was when it surfaced. August 2008, right? And that it was located on a random flickr page. THAT is just weird.

She/he also points out Sarah's sensible shoes. And makes the point that it's as if someone were carefully staging what a 9 mo pregnant governor should look like. (Ordinarily Sarah wears much higher heels.)

Interesting that it was WholyMary who brought up Gusty, and yes, also interesting that someone yesterday wanted Laura to drop anything Gusty-related. ummmmm.

6/9/2011 06:16:14 am

@JJ. Bailey's photo of Sarah & Trig is at IM, post from yesterday I think.

6/9/2011 06:24:33 am

@mitch.

Gusty photo if taken April 13 shows she went from almost flat to full in 5 days. Impossible. Shows she lied when she said she never got big with this pregnancy. Shows flight attendants should have known her late stage on pregnancy, if not labor and leaking fluid.

Photo had great significance as single-handedly shutting down Daily Kos inquiry and causing Fact Check to say Palin didn't fake the pregnancy, though it appeared mysteriously right after the Daily Kos speculation and no one ever claimed to have been the one to put it on flickr.

Hope that helps. Sure there's more.

ginny

6/9/2011 06:26:53 am

The other thing that is a bit confusing is that over at Palin Deceptions, Audrey had reported in a post (before Gusty showed the video footage when she addressed the faked photo rumors) that in a search of the KTVA website, there were no videos of Palin footage/interviews in their archives from Jan 08 to July 08. But then, suddenly, Gusty appeared in a segment denying the faked photo claims and showed the "missing" footage.
So why wasn't it there with all the other footage in the archive of the website when Audrey first looked?

http://www.palindeception.com/blog/2008/12/breaking-news-ktva-has-lots-of-unseen.html

6/9/2011 06:34:48 am

@silver. Wonder what the original due date was? If she announced in early March that she was 7 mos. pregnant, that would have made the due date early May.

My guess is that as soon as she decided on the presentation date of April 18, she figured out how premature she could claim the baby was without questions about his being born at MatSu and going home promptly and not having other preemie issues, and then she picked May 18. It was important that he "arrive early" so no one would be watching her or the hospital for his arrival.

Anonfornow

6/9/2011 06:40:55 am

Several points need to be made clear: the footage footage of Gusty interviewing Palin wearing these clothes, in this hall, were run on TV the evening of April 13 and is still available on line. If you watch the video, you will even be able to spot the exact second when the still was snapped: Sarah looks off to one side and gets that cat-who-swallowed the canary look on her face.

What makes this interview and the stills from it suspicious is that the legislative session ended early that day. Everyone went home immediately. But this interview wasn't held until five o'clock? And it takes place in the hall? Not in her office, not in the governor's mansion, but in a deserted hall filled with boxes after everyone had left. Why?

Well, I think it was because lots of important people in Juneau saw Sarah that day, and she wasn't wearing her empathy belly. If she suddenly appeared wearing a huge belly on the 10 o'clock news, a lot of people would have gone WTF? Watch the video footage and you will see that the camera NEVER shows her stomach. But someone--probably McAllister--was there to snap the still that shows her in her fake belly, just in case it might be needed as "proof" for a later date.

The way this was staged tells us that both McAllister and Gusty were in on the hoax. Incidentally, Gusty is from Todd's home turf and is part Native American. Do we know they aren't related?

Ottoline

6/9/2011 06:44:08 am

Mitch: the "Cliff Notes" version of what these photos tell us.

1. The Gusty photo (and Gusty video interview done at the same time) are the only times Palin had a watermelon-sized belly. Photos both before AND after Apr 13 show her much flatter. And then she gave "birth." This is consistent with a strap-on fake pregnancy -- in contrast to a real pregnancy, which shows clearly at month 7 (usually months earlier) and does not dramatically decrease in size before delivery.

2. The date given for the Gusty photos (Apr 13) has always been suspect -- because the photos appeared on the internet only in Aug and via v odd circumstances.

3. The "set record straight" video by Gusty seemed to establish that the Apr 13 date was correct because that video looked like it showed a news broadcast dated right after Apr 13. However, there is no archival footage of such a broadcast on the station's web site. It is unclear whether it really was broadcast then (thus establishing the date of the Gusty photo op) or whether it was not broadcast at at all (thus establishing that Gusty lied and falsified this video; and also that there is no info that conclusively dates those photos).

4. The appearance (for the first time in the Bailey book) of the Palin+baby-on-shoulder office photo is startling because: palin's hair/glasses/jacket seem identical to those in the Gusty photo; the baby seems too old to be a 1-mo old preemie born at month 7.5 or month 8; the baby is one we have not seen before). This suggests the photos were taken on the same day as the Gusty photos. If that can be established, it presents the amazing ability of Palin to be hugely pregnant one minute and post-delivery with a baby on her shoulder the next minute -- or at least all within a day. In other words, it proves the fake-pregnancy hoax.

5. If the photos can be conclusively dated to August, then there is the suggestion that the RNC stylists collaborated in organizing SP's look that day. Her pregnancy look is very different on this one day: She is wearing a large jacket with sleeves folded up so you can see the lining; she is wearing sturdy shoes rather than monkey heels; her hair is combed in a noticeably more well-groomed way than Palin's usual pre-RNC disheveled style, whether it is an updo or hair down; and, most important, this is the ONLY time she is photographed with this watermelon-sized pregnancy; and no scarf. So, if the RNC stylists were involved, that means McCain and his minions were also involved, and the Palin Hoax was known to the GOP at a very early stage in the election, perhaps even before Palin's selection was announced.

Lots of "ifs" but if any of them pan out, this is v big news indeed. If anyone cares.

Molly

6/9/2011 07:06:14 am

I see she is still missing the button in those photos.

I remember looking at the Gusty photo before and what struck me was that Palin is slightly out of focus. Gusty is more in focus than Palin, yet Palin is closer to the camera. I thought that Palin was photoshopped in but when the video surfaced I forgot about it.

campaigntriviafan

6/9/2011 07:09:54 am

I did a little searching last night on Daily Kos and learned that the ArcXIX profile was created in 2004 or 2005. The first comment was in 2006, so I doubt that his or her profile name contains a coded message, much as I would like that to be true.
On the subject of the Gusty photo, I wonder if the real secret of the photo is that the original showed a much less obviously pregnant governor. It could have been enhanced later by someone working with a professional photo program. For example, the artists at this website http://www.tucia.com/service/extensive/ can take people out of photos or add them, change backgrounds,hair , makeup or clothes. It's astonishing what they can do. After exploring this website I will never again look at photographic " evidence" the same way. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but I think it's important to question everything.

jeff

6/9/2011 07:19:33 am

@B,

The original Flicker account where the 2 Gusty photos were posted were allegedly posted by Dan Carpenter, the photographer in the suit on Palin's right side in one of the pics. Gusty described him as a friend who did her a favor by taking the wide-angle shot of the 2nd Gusty photo when the "interview" was in progress. Gusty claimed to have taken the photo which included Carpenter, Palin and McAllister.
The main reason that it was thought that the photos were posted by Dan Carpenter is that in the original Flicker posting, the caption under the picture was (my use if quote marks" ") "Myself, Governor Palin and Press Secretary McAllister". Incidentally, McAllister actually worked as a reporter at KTUU, the NBC affiliate in Anchorage. Palin subsequently hired him in July, 2008.

Incidentally, the caption under the photo that Carpenter allegedly took as a "favor" for Gusty, read as follows (again, the "quote marks" are mine): "CBS 11 doing a live interview as the legislative session comes to an end." Finally, the "Title" of the account was
"Last day wrap up" (my quote marks)

I hope this helps.

Jeff

Anon55

6/9/2011 07:25:30 am

Forgive me if this has been explained, but I'm confused.

1. Why is Dan Carpenter, a cameraman in a suit and tie? I've never seen a working cameraman in a suit and tie. And if he wasn't working, what the hell is he doing in the hallway having his pic taken with the Gov? Am I missing something?

2. As I understand it, both Carpenter and McAllister at the time of the picture worked for television station KTTU and Gusty worked for rival station KTVA. It's totally a ghost town in the hallway except for Gusty, her cameraman and her two rivals from KTTU (including the strange cameraman in a suit and tie). Were Carpenter and McAllister shooting their own story? Do that story ever appear on KTTU?

3. As I understand it, the still photo of Gusty and the Gov was taken with Gusty's camera as a favor to her so she could have a "souvenir" of her bigtime interview with the Gov and somehow mysteriously found its way onto the Internet. Was the photo of Gusty's rivals, Carpenter and McAllister, also shot with Gusty's camera? If so, why did Gusty want a shot of her rivals with the Gov? If the two photos have nothing to do with each other other than having been shot the same day, how did they both mysteriously make their way on the Internet at the same time?

Sorry if this has all been explained.

jeff

6/9/2011 07:44:04 am

Ginny,

You're correct that the media would not be bound by HIPAA. In fact, they are denying their own ethics as a journalist if they neither investigate nor report a matter in the public interest. I can't speak for Brad, but this appears to be the thesis of his paper about the "spiral of silence." Whether Gusty felt that this was a career-killer or there was some other reason she and others were not journalistic curiosity is debatable, and we may never know, but please notice the way that "Laura and Brad are like bulldogs holding onto a bone" in their investigation versus the handling of others much closer in proximity. You have to make an assumption about what is more plausible:
1.) A huge number of fairly intellectual, and some with extremely high aptitudes, are having a group fantasy about a conspiracy that allegedly took place. The odd part about this is because of the known preponderance of evidence to support our own "Palin-Trig birth Hoax Theory". While that is interesting, the stunning fact that goes along with this is the fact that there is NO hard, objective, physical evidence to support Palin's birth story, and very little circumstantial evidence (perhaps, a couple of photos), all of which can be nullified by conflicting evidence in the public domain. The weight of proof for the affirmative that she was pregnant and had Trig on April 18, 2008 is something ONLY PALIN CAN PROVE. However, if we produce any ONE concrete piece of evidence to the contrary, her story is proven to be a hoax. If you're 8 months pregnant, you can't wake up and say "I'm not going to be pregnant today because I didn't feel like buying any maternity clothes and my pants are too tight when I put a pillow under my shirt and pants. So, no problem, I'll take a break for this pregnancy and I'll just be skinnier today than I was a few days ago." But that is exactly what we have to believe if we are to accept Palin's Trig Birth story.

Jeff

Anon55

6/9/2011 07:51:53 am

I just took another look at the Factcheck article that Laura linked to.

I have a hard time believing that the picture wasn't taken on the date that Gusty says it was taken, but one thing that strikes me as very disingenuous is her statement to Factcheck that she was shocked, just shocked, how the photos showed up online: "We spoke with Gusty, who sent us this copy of the photo, and she told us she was surprised the photo had made it onto the Internet. 'I was under the impression that nobody had it except for me.'" Sorry, that just sounds fishy to me. Combined with the fact that the other photo online was of Gusty's newsman rival Bill McAllister -- well, inquiring minds want to know if there are any personal connections between Gusty and McAllister? An affair, perhaps? I have no idea, but I think someone should ask Gusty whether she has ever had a personal relationship of any kind with McAllister.

Second thing that I think will torpedo Gusty's brief career when all comes to light in her statement to Factcheck:
“'About a week after that picture was taken, [Palin] actually gave birth to Trig,' Gusty told FactCheck.org."

Palin "actually gave birth to Trig?" Huh, how does Gusty know? Was she actually there when he "popped out" to quote Chuck Heath?

Mark my words, Gusty is going to live to regret those words when her career is destroyed, along with those of all the other "little people." Meanwhile, Sarah is laughing all the way to the bank.

curiousagain

6/9/2011 08:01:45 am

If the Gusty photo collapses as "proof" then what do we make of the strange fire that killed a woman and destroyed the adoption records? Is there any possibility that this woman is responsible for things we can't even imagine? What about Menard's plane crash? I'm getting a little nervous about this whole thing.
And still no one is talking.

Then you read about what Frank Baily helped to do to Thoma and you do understand how afraid of Sara the people of Alaska are of her. And how many people have disappeared or aren't talking. Can there be that much money floating around Alaska to keep people quiet?

curiousagain

6/9/2011 08:07:32 am

Oh, forgot to mention. If they said she was eight months pregnant in April, and they moved to due date up to May 18. Then when Trig was born they said he was Premature? How can that be? I was married to an Ob/Gyn NP and I seem to recall that after a certain number of weeks the baby is no longer considered "premature". Maybe not full term but certainly not a "preemie" in the true sense of the word. Can someone square me up on this? And HOW did her ob/gyn come to move her due date up when she was already eight months pregnant? Talk about an ob with her head up her you know what. Ultrasounds, amnio's, prenatal checks - unless this ob is a HACK then she should have known within a week when the due date was months earlier. A late change in due date makes it sound like they were baby shopping, not growing their own

Molly

6/9/2011 08:20:13 am

@Anon55.....Very good points!

Jeff

6/9/2011 08:20:29 am

@Ginny,

I see that I forgot to add the 2nd choice of assumptions that can be made, and it's the most important one:

2. That Palin's story is as full of holes as a wheel of Swiss cheese. Palin is as full of lies as she is of herself.

Please ignore grammar, syntax errors, etc in my comments. I remain humbled for having to send them out "as is", but it seems to be much faster than editing, and I can actually get a little work done intermittently, also, too.

Jeff

Anon55

6/9/2011 08:21:00 am

@ Anonfornow. Thank you! It's all beginning to make sense. And I like your moniker "Anonfornow." I get a feeling that you might have some inside information and you are only Anonymous for the time being (until the floodgates open).

I hadn't realized that the legislative session had ended quite early and everyone had gone home by late, late afternoon, except, of course, our trusty Gusty, her cameraman, McAllister and the strangely suited Carpenter. (Still can't get over why he is in suit and tie).

I previously speculated about a personal relationship between Gusty and McAllister. Perhaps the personal relationship was between Gusty and Carpenter. But something is not adding up.

Conscious at last

6/9/2011 08:22:16 am

Closed doors, all around, is not a surprise. Frank Bailey is one of the few former political insiders who has spoken out against Palin. Significantly, he was willing to share a lot, but stopped at babygate.

So why is babygate the third rail here as well as with professional "journalists?" Self-interest is the culprit, but not simply careerism-- other forms of survival may be at issue.

Remember, we have just been reminded by IM's Anon@4:32 that Dar Miller may have been involved in this story. There is a possibility that babygate might involve a murder. So, insiders might fear for their own safety and that of their loved ones. Furthermore, there may be some concern that these insiders could eventually be questioned by legal authorities about these issues. Thus there's multi-layered jeopardy here.
It's not a pretty picture.

Ottoline

6/9/2011 08:24:21 am

Jeff -- Re Gusty shoes. Way earlier, someone posted the weather the day this was shot and I recall questions about cold weather in AK and those shoes, but I have forgotten the details.

The time of day of the Gusty photo/interview was also discussed, and Gusty mentions it in her "for the record" video: the windows in the doors are dark, yet I recall the session was over much earlier. Again, I've forgotten the details but they could be re-checked.

Similarly, I'm a little puzzled by bright daylight for the office+baby photo (presumably without giant fake pregnancy belly on) and those dark windows in the doors for the Gusty pix. My own explanation was they had to wait until the place was cleared out to do the video if they wanted no observers (consistent with hoax pix), whereas the presence of passers-by would add value to a legit interview.

Another detail: I scoured the internet to find that hallway (and finally did, in some tour-of-the-building video) because I was bothered by the stuff showing in the crook of the elbow of Carpenter (on Palin's right): was it the remnant of some bad Photoshopping? But no, the picture of the empty hallway reveals the there is a sm whiteboard just below the nameplate, and once you know that you can see it there, behind him.

Also by the way, I too looked at both Gusty photos v carefully for Photoshopping traces, and I found none. (But I'm no expert, just a frequent PS user.)

Anon55

6/9/2011 08:31:21 am

Oh, I just had to share this from KTVA's website re Gusty: "She is also the lead investigative reporter for the Eye Team Investigates franchise." And then we have this: "Andrea is the recipient of five Alaska Broadcaster's Association Awards including . . . Best Investigation.

http://www.ktva.com/inside/bios/114174654.html

I suggest Ms. Gusty put her investigative journalism skills to use and investigate Palin's strange pregnancy.

curiousagain

6/9/2011 08:31:43 am

Ottoline

The SCARF, OMG, the damn scarf. How did we all miss that? Or at least me. EVERY other photo, video of her she is wearing that damn scarf. Why that day was it absent? She HAD TO show she was pregnant. From that alone I'm on board with it being faked completely. I keep forgetting the best evidence is often what you don't see instead of what you do see. Good catch.....

Jeff

6/9/2011 08:38:27 am

anon55,

Good points on all. Hopefully, the e-mails to come will give us a little more insight to piece it all together.

Those shouldn't be rhetorical questions, but until we discover the answers to all of the "who, what, where, when" questions, the "why" questions will be mere conjecture.

Unfortunately, and it is like a kick in the gut for me, some of these things are "aggressively ignored" by the press when their own access to power is at stake.

Wonkette made a revealing quip about the situation when, to EVERYONE'S astonishment, Palin's pregnancy was announced on Mar 5, 2008: “How did nobody in the Alaskan press corps notice that she’s seven months pregnant? If we were paid to look at Sarah Palin all the time…”

Yeah, it IS pretty preposterous.

Jeff

Ottoline

6/9/2011 08:38:28 am

Anon55 -- I have never seen your qu asked or answered, or even discussed -- and they are good ones IMO.

jeff

6/9/2011 08:49:31 am

anon55, et al,

Just to complete the cycle of inbreeding within the AK press, AK Dispatch reported that KTVA had hired McAllister to work for them now earlier this year April 11.

I don't know if he's on that "Crack-investigative" team they brag of, but hge qualifies just as well as Gusty since he was always a Palin panty-sniffer anyway. Sorry to be tasteless, but it fits McAllister to a tee. Just sayin'. Jeff

JillyG

6/9/2011 08:51:57 am

There is so much here I want to respond to, but it really looks like there are enough people "on it" that I can just breathe and trust that the truth will come out. However, I am going to go waaaayyyyyy off topic here and say that I have always believed that Dr. Gina Loudon is somehow involved in this hoax. I came upon a video of her and her son with DS and I'll be damned if it's not one of the "Trigs" they've displayed. I am thinking it looks like book tour Trig...there HAS to be something to the friendship between SP and GL other than both being fundies with kids with DS. (and fwiw, I have a child - a beautiful 11 yo daughter - with DS so please don't think I just think they all look alike LOL) Anyway, check it out...
http://drginaloudon.com/tag/down-syndrome/

Ottoline

6/9/2011 08:52:28 am

curiousagain -- the real catch was by another commenter on Palingates who some time ago noted all the ways Palin was dressed differently that day -- that she looked a lot more like a real pregnant woman (wide enough jacket, believable shoes) and her grooming was more consistent with that of her RNC stylists than her own efforts, esp her hair. And that same commenter noted NO SCARF. Only just this once. Because the stylists had brought the fake belly, which is not worn before or later.

viola

6/9/2011 08:53:38 am

@Anonfornow: great points but I have a question. Did you see the video on April 13th? Or are you relying on a caption or label with that information. Thanks!

To repeat. Who most recently brought up Gusty as someone who knows the truth about Trig? W.M. Just sayin'. . . because I'd totally forgotten about her.

Cracklin' Charlie

6/9/2011 08:56:24 am

I think these pictures may contain many clues.
The cameraman (shooting video) is wearing a dress shirt and tie. His shirt is not tucked in, and the tie looks like it may be loosed at the neck. Admittedly, I haven't been around a lot of cameramen, but when I have seen them shown while working on tv, they don't always look like they are wearing business formal. Just a thought.

LTA

6/9/2011 09:00:45 am

A couple things about Gusty's statement to factcheck---

So Gusty doesn't know how these photos happened to be posted online? At just the most precipitous time to crush the hoax rumors? So she's saying...these photos were for all intents and purposes, STOLEN. This would be like if you or I had never-seen publicly, private photos of the zapruder film in our desks at home. And one day, just as rumors of a government cover up are hitting a fever pitch, our private photos showing LHO holding his ID and pointing a gun at JFK are on the front page of the paper.

WE never gave them to anyone, they just somehow "got to" the paper. Only if we are like Gusty...instead of worrying that our privacy has been breached and personal photos have been stolen from us...we just say "huh. that's interesting".

Since Gusty really was the only person with access to these photos (and by her own admission, she was) and the flicker username had her hometown zip code (Bethel AK I believe) then I think it's a fairly safe bet that Gusty posted these pics. Maybe she owed Sarah a favor. Maybe she and Todd ARE related.

Another interesting item...the factcheck people asked her if the image was "altered". Instead of simply saying NO...she said "there was no photoshopping done".

Aren't there lots of other softwares and things which you could use to alter a photo? And still TECHNICALLY not have it "photo shopped"?

Lastly, as someone else pointed out...Gusty made sure to mention to factcheck "just a few days after this, the governor HAD THE BABY"...

So rumors of Sarah Palin's faked pregnancy were lighting up the Internet. Factcheck normally scouts to prove/disprove things via numerous outlets. Yet with the Trig rumors...as soon as they start, factcheck is suddenly gifted with not one but two photos, taken on just the needed "date", appropriately "sourced"...and they just popped up out of nowhere, attributable to some mysterious photo thief which Gusty somehow let slip right by her to the point where she didn't know the identity of the person who put the photos online.

Factcheck went from credible to crap over this, for me. They should have dug deeper and they know it. As with nearly every aspect of babygate...the lie has flourished because people keep quiet when they should be shouting.

Lidia17

6/9/2011 09:10:32 am

Please, please, don’t drag up the Photoshop and the Gusty picture again!! Audrey’s blog got derailed with that, and I have to wonder if it wasn’t intentional and malicious, considering the amount of energy it sucked out of the place.

First of all, Photoshop and Photoshoppers are just not that good, not that *realistic* (and I say this after working for decades as a graphic designer), and second of all, Photoshop-truthers still don’t seem to understand that it is far more troublesome to try and make a fake Palin-PG photo out of whole cloth than it is to just take a photo of a PG-looking Palin.

The Gusty photos are legit, as far as I can tell, in that they were backed up by video that was aired in which Palin and Gusty appear in the same fashion (although limited to head and shoulders IIRC). Now, if that video was not aired as Gusty claimed (and I think only Alaskans can really assure us of that) and there is an issue about the date, then we enter into another level of the hoax… BUT…

BUT!… Palin WAS photographed AND videotaped with the Gusty-size belly and a green-patterned scarf at the RGA event on the 17th. I don’t believe the documentation of that appearance was faked or tampered with; it’s just very limited. But it does exist.

So, there was hardly reason to stage the Gusty photo and video after the fact, when they already had the large-belly RGA material. See what I’m sayin’??

Lidia17

6/9/2011 09:11:58 am

Elizabeth, just want to make sure you understand that the Gusty photos are NOT the only ones where Palin looks full-term. She looks full-term in the RGA material.

curiousagain

6/9/2011 09:16:21 am

Factcheck's fail on this points out the extensive power of the people behind Palin. There are many who believe that "unbiased" and even "liberal" media only exist to provide token resistance to the real agenda of the people controlling the country. How is time and again something comes forward and out of no where another contradictory information comes forward. If that doesn't work you can always strong arm FactCheck to get out of the way or have your horde go to the web and do something sinister like changing the history of Paul Revere's ride on Wiki. The rot inside the media is growing more apparent every day

6/9/2011 09:21:38 am

Can someone clarify this for me? In one picture we have Dan Carpenter, Palin and Bill McAllister. In the other, we have Palin, Gusty, and a camera man. Was the camera man in the Gusty picture ever identified? It doesn't look like Dan Carpenter (who is wearing a white shirt) from behind. It looks more like McAllister, but he is wearing a purple shirt with dark pants in the Gutsy picture, so it probably isn't him. These pictures were supposed to be taken on the same day, right? So who is the camera man?

6/9/2011 09:31:00 am

@Lydia17. I don't think the Dallas pictures were available when McCain picked Palin. Gusty was it, especially since the Alaska website had scrubbed Palin's photos. Someone dug the news photo and video up later. The full term belly is much clearer in Gusty and three Amigos.

Anon55

6/9/2011 09:31:18 am

@ JillyG

Dr. Gina Louden is not a name I had ever heard before. Could she be the mysterious Dr. L to whom WholyMary referred?

At first, I thought WholyMary might be referring to Anchorage neotalogist Dr. Lily Lou, but then WholyMary said Dr. L wasn't actually a medical doctor.

I checked out Dr. Gina Louden who is not a doctor, but apparently has a Ph.D (presumably from some fly by night correspondence school). She is described as "a political analyst, writer, and policologist"
http://www.truthtalk630.com/

If you know what a policologist is, you are smarter than a fifth grader and smarter than me.

Anonymoose

6/9/2011 09:41:11 am

The people wondering who ArcXIX is - I found an old blog post that claims they are Charles Hartley from Ohio. So I don't think ArcXIX is an Alaskan insider, he must have been using a source.

http://kerfuffle.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/we-found-arcxix/

JillyG

6/9/2011 09:45:52 am

LOL, Anon55!
I had first heard of Dr. Louden a couple years ago on one of these blogs but can't remember who, so sorry for not giving credit where it is due. Anyway, I noticed that one of the "tipsters" either WM or Anon said something like "don't bother trying to find this doctor where you think, it's not a different specialty." so my mind went right to Dr. Gina. I really, truly think that she holds a key to this whole story.
In my search today, I came across this posting, it appears to be an old blog of Blade, who now has Sarah's Scandals. Apparently, I am not the only one to think that Dr.Gina L is part of this conspiracy...
http://www.izuserious.com/sarah-palin-legs/sarahs-scandals-double-double-toil-and-trouble/

SLQ

6/9/2011 09:48:05 am

B: You say "I don't think the Dallas pictures were available when McCain picked Palin. Gusty was it, especially since the Alaska website had scrubbed Palin's photos. Someone dug the news photo and video up later."

Exactly. I think the RGA photo is suspect, as well, as it suddenly appeared just a few weeks ago. Palin knew photos were taken at the RGA conference. Surely, she would have used them to put the fake birth story to rest earlier, if she could. Of course, they conflict with the flight attendant reports that the stage of her pregnancy was not visibly discernible.

I think the RGA photo should also be investigated and authenticated. But the bottom line is the shape-shifting.

6/9/2011 09:48:12 am

@Jeff. Yes, it appeared Carpenter had captioned the pictures, but I recall that Audrey did not believe he had posted them, maybe because of the flickr account's name or maybe (don't remember) he refused to answer when asked (He might have still been in AK then.) Prof. Scharlott I believe thinks McAllister did it.

Molly

6/9/2011 09:48:14 am

Don't stop now Anon55. I am loving your comments.

JillyG

6/9/2011 09:49:28 am

here is a link to what a policologist is, and it fits to a T what SP would "use" her for, though I have a feeling it goes further than that, involving thttp://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Politologisthe Trig convolution.

Lidia17

6/9/2011 09:53:19 am

daisydem, what's the case being made for the Bailey Tri-G shot to be from the same day as the Gusty photos?

If that's really the case, I might posit that the Bailey Tri-G could be the same as the chubby Heath Tri-G, just a week younger. I've only seen a low-res reproduction of a Kindle picture, but I see a similarity between them. I don't think either one is "Ruffles" from May 3, however (if Ruffles truly was photographed with Mercede on May 3).

--
Jeff, as far as “being staged”, yes the Gusty session does reek of that, but that’s also due to it being Mrs. Palin. The staginess is conveyed by the wild gleam in her eye, and the fact that—really—she does nothing that ISN’T staged, when you think about it! To be fair, it could have been “staged” and still have taken place on April 13, both.

--
Anonfornow, yes you are getting at just what I was talking about above. I hadn’t read down to your comment when I posted my earlier one, about the video. Great clarification you’ve added, for those who haven’t watched it.

--
Ottoline, don’t forget the RGA photos and videos. Everyone seems to be doing that. I see I finally have an ally in the non-Photoshopped Gusty camp, though; thanks!

--
Campaigntriviafan, notice how slick and airbrushed and plastic-y, though, and how they are all fantasy figures in fantasy spaces with fantasy backgrounds, or flat backgrounds… that’s easy-peasy. “Dropping people in” and trying to make them look *normal*— *in normal environments*—with all the lighting and the dust and dandruff and the skin and surface textures and reflections that need to match exactly to look credible in the real world? That’s what’s virtually impossible. And pointless anyway, because there are the RGA PG photos.

--
“I suggest Ms. Gusty put her investigative journalism skills to use and investigate Palin's strange pregnancy.” Anon55, great suggestion!!

6/9/2011 09:53:54 am

Is Louden the mom of the adopted DS boy older than Trig but mistaken for Trig b/c Piper was pushing him in stroller?

If so, and if Wholly Mary is at least partly correct, Louden could be Dr. L. and could have arranged the DS adoption for Palin. Maybe the baby switch at the RNC, if Palin Peyton Place is correct.

My brain is tied in knots. I need to finish mowing and then drink wine.

JillyG

6/9/2011 09:59:39 am

and I agree with the comments regarding the change in SP's dress for the Gusty video. She wore track suits and scarves and loungewear until she was coached by the McCain staff. The lack of a scarf is a huge red flag that something was up, IMO. (just as Britta's wearing of one in her "wedding" pictures" tells me the same LOL) I'm sorry, I have a hard time staying on topic with this whole sordid mess. I just have so many thoughts about so much of it!

Ottoline

6/9/2011 10:02:51 am

Campaigntriviafan: I have done a good deal of "photoshopping" family members into photos or making them look thinner or better. I looked at the giant pregnancy on the Gusty photos (at the pixel level) for that very possibility (a photoshopped fake belly). I found nothing. Lots of other people seemed to be looking too, as we discussed it at Palindeceptions. The "aha" moment for me came when I realized the beauty of the fake belly: No photo alteration needed, and others in photo can say they knew nothing to be amiss (even if they knew).

It's a different situation for the March 14 photo:

http://i54.tinypic.com/n3qcs8.jpg

What gives the Mar 14 photo its power is that it's a photo that has recognisable other people in it, on a known day/place, with reprints appearing in newspapers the same day. No alteration of any key feature of this photo can remain credible for long.

6/9/2011 10:06:57 am

WholyMary =WM= William McAllister????

Palintologist

6/9/2011 10:09:35 am

Interesting posts & video about Dr. Gina Louden, if nothing more than coincidence... sure. She seems to be a big Palin fan, don't know that she was involved with the Palins butif nothing else did Sarah get the idea from her about a DS child. Her husband is a Senator after all. Connecting the dots yet again.

As for the cameraman in a suit and tie, it dawned on me if he is a god fearing american he was in church on Sunday and had to rush over to a hastily arranged filming. No time to change, the gov got an idea...

curiousagain

6/9/2011 10:10:12 am

I'm not a long term follower so what happened to Audrey's blog that it got taken down over Gusty? More Palin antics? Was she threatened like so many others? Bombarded with the snark I saw today at WaPo? Very scary people out there and even more wondering - who coordinates these people. Do they have a talking website from which they draw their words and accusations and are directed to flock to threatening sites? Some of the things I've seen on the WaPo site border on actual threats, is that legal? Free speech?

Ottoline

6/9/2011 10:23:37 am

Lidia17: Yes, absolutely, I agree that the Gusty photos were not altered.

Can you point to an RNC photo that looks convincing? The ones I've seen all seemed like another of those homemade padded-pants efforts plus scarf.I went frame-by-frame thru the videos and never found a big-enough profile shot -- or a small-enough one. Plus next there's the Alaska Air staff who saw nothing alarming a few hours later. Shapeshifting.

Anonymoose

6/9/2011 10:30:25 am

@curiousagain, Audrey was threatened to have her identity exposed which if I recall correctly could have harmed her husband's career (a doctor?). At the time people were saying it was the conservative blogger/journalist Robert Stacy McCain who threatened to expose her. Also earlier this year, Morgan who contributed to Audrey's blog turned up on the Immoral Minority comments claiming that it was Patrick of palin/politicalgates who exposed Audrey. Not sure what that is about. Bree Palin also closed down her blog which made people suspicious though she said it wasn't. Bree reappeared in the comments sections of some of the blogs earlier this year though, hi Bree!!

ginny

6/9/2011 10:59:11 am

Jeff, I agree with pretty much all you said.
JillyG, I watched that video, and I don't think that child with DS looks anything like any of the "Trigs" that I've seen. He looks very different to me. Do you have a link to a pic or video of the Trig that you think he resembles?
RE: the RGA/Dallas pic: I think that it's (or they--is there more than one?) authentic. I think SP could not and did not DARE risk going without the fake belly in front of a huge audience and knowing there would be lots of pictures and even possibly video taken. She knew she would be "having Trig" that night and had to wear the belly. I think it's surprising that she didn't have a few copies of those photos on hand, just in case she needed them. Then again, as I've said before, she not a very good planner, so maybe it's not surprising at all.

Brad Scharlott

6/9/2011 10:59:41 am

TM: Yes, the camera guy in the white shirt was identified by Audrey's research group – I don't have the name handy. It was a regular KTVA cameraman.

JillyG

6/9/2011 11:07:05 am

@B...
Yes, this is the same child that was mistaken for Trig at one of the book tour sites...I really think that was on purpose, and it proves that they have more of a relationship than just through the "airwaves" so to speak (for those who don't know, Dr. Gina has a radio show and is a huge Palin fan)

Furthermore, I really think that her son had been a stand in for Trig several other times. My question is, WHY? Why would they NEED a stand-in? If your "prop" is back home receiving his much needed therapies while you're on the road, Sarah, SAY IT, because that is what moms like me with special needs kids want to hear. Don't just plug the hole with the nearest kid with DS.

However, I think it could be more than that - deeper than that. I just don't even know how to explain it, but I think that the real Trig is home with his REAL parents, being loved and cared for as he should be. I just want SP exposed for the fraud and liar that she is!

Leona

6/9/2011 11:12:46 am

In that photo where Palin is flanked by two tall men, I would say that Palin could probably outperform the guys if they were bench pressing. She has some incredibly big shoulders. Mas macha. La mas macha!

Leona

6/9/2011 11:20:12 am

A pregnancy suit is not even very expensive

Leona

6/9/2011 11:20:48 am

http://www.amazon.com/Maternity-Pregnant-Padding-Costume-Accessory/dp/B00394JZVE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307668728&sr=8-1
A pregnancy suit is not even very expensive.

LTA

6/9/2011 11:36:30 am

All thismtalk abbot Gina Louden is VERY interesting to me.

While I think we need to be very careful not to chase down wild tangent primrose paths...there is one aspect of Louden's involvement which could very well be important...

It seems like after Gryphen's 2 Babies post, people ramped up their observation and careful noting of "Book Tour" Trig(s). Remember, it seems like 2 or 3 little boys were shown in very short order. And there were major, obvious differences in not just ear shape but facial features too.

And then ALL of a sudden, there is an excellent article about Palin which is COMPLETELY panned based solely upon the author mistaking Gina Louden's son for Trig. Of course all the Palin Patrol started squalling right away- this guy thinks all DS kids look the SAME, he doesn't know ANYTHING, etc.

You will never convince me that Piper Palin pushing Gina's son wasn't a setup. Here's Piper- who is VERY often seen holding Trig or pushing his stroller...pushing a toddler who obviously has DS- same size, age, and hair color as Trig...of COURSE people are going to think it's Trig. I'd bet anything most of the people there to get their copies of Going Rogue signed also believed that was Trig.

I think the scene was set because Palin was nervous Gryphen had alerted the public to her revolving baby scam. She wanted an out- if ever confronted with Gryphen's findings, she could shrug it off, roll her eyes, and say "oh, right...like when that flighty liberal writer said my friend's son Samuel was actually Trig?! They say there's different babies, heck, they don't even look to see whose baby it's supposed to be!"
And blah blah blah.

Every time I hear Palin say "those rumors that Trig isn't my kid" and see CBJ's purposely vague letter saying "this child, Trig, was edible to be born at his home community hospital" (how helpful...you know 95% of us were probably "eligible" to be born at our "community hospitals") I always remember the name of Sarah Palin's MAIN game-

PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.

Of course what I am hoping when she covered all those bases, she never thought she would have to account for 24,000 pages of inconsistencies :)

Here's hoping tomorrow is a GOOD DAY for babygaters.

Jeff

6/9/2011 12:00:02 pm

Lidia,

I agree that the photos were legit. U think Audrey did as much of an authentication from a technical point as anyone would do.

Someone asked about the cameraman with shirt untucked. It was Scott Favorite.

Re the weather in Juneau, I checked with NOAA and it was drizzly, windy 15-25mph with gusts up to 32mph. Humidity high as always at around 93%. Temp was low of 36deg. hi of 40deg. It was 37 degrees outside as of 5:00 pm, when this piece was allegedly shot. Those are facts.

The only snark I can interject is if I'm a reporter and I'm going to be out of town for a few days in Juneau that time of year, I might leave my rubber sandals at home or in the hotel, since the weather was typical of the dreary, cold, wet weather in Juneau this time of year.

The legislative session ended around lunchtime, 1:00pm at the latest. In watching the videos, I noticed that the boxes in the hall were being used and there was a little more clutter. I don't know if this means anything, but the empty boxes have been put back against the wall, whereas all the senators and rep made a beeline to the airport earlier. Maybe someone came back and put empty boxes back out into the hall, but it just looks staged to me. Just my opinion and just a hunch that could have an easy explanation, but those are the type of simple details that might be overlooked in re-staging an area for a re-shoot.

Just one other minor issue that strikes me as odd. If I were Gusty and the other reporters and camera guys, I would've wrapped up that interview with the Gov at about 1:30 and been back home that evening. They're going to miss a half day of work needlessly the next day, and the session is over. The print reporters have hit the road already for the day and for the legislative session. These are fairly small market stations, so they are probably more bootstrap operations where having a couple of their personnel out of town on the road with expenses would be watched pretty closely for wasted time and expenses. 2 reporters and a cameraman for one station and one reporter/one camera guy for another in a little town that rolls up the sidewalks once the legislature adjourns? Small detail that can be explained away, but it hasn't been addressed in anyone's narrative. Time lines and a person's activities relative to those known time lines with respect to deadlines, etc are usually in sync, or they're explained away. Just my 2cents.

Good comments by all. But drop the photo shopping meme. Read Audrey's blog first before going there.

Thanks.
Jeff

Anon55

6/9/2011 12:00:12 pm

Okay, I did a little sleuthing and I think the second cameraman (the one actually holding the camera, not Dan Carpenter grinning in his suit and tie) is Scott "Scotty" Smith, Chief Photographer for KTVA. His email is [email protected].

I know Gusty is refusing to answer any questions, but Laura I don't think it hurts to email Mr. Smith and ask him if that's him holding the camera and, if so, see if he would care to comment.

I do believe that the video and pictures were shot on the stated day and that Palin did look as she appeared in the photo (i.e., wearing her pregnancy belly). What I find exceedingly odd, however, are the circumstances of how apparently everyone had been gone from the building for hours, but the magic foursome -- Gusty and Scotty Smith and their putative rivals McAllister and Carpenter -- show up in the empty hallways to shoot the Gov. (in the case of Gusty and Smith) or just to hang out (as apparently in the case of McAllister and Carpenter).

Also, too, as another poster pointed out, even Mr. Smith (the working photographer) seems to be wearing a dress shirt, albeit untucked, and it looks like he has a tie on.

Let me just say I have around the news business professionally and I have never seen a working cameraman wearing a tie. Ever. But, yeah, I guess they are more formal up in Alaska. That's why Gusty's wearing those fancy shoes in the picture.

jeff

6/9/2011 12:19:47 pm

Leona,

Just like anything else, you can pay a lot for anything. I found one in the way back machine of internet archives that I wore one afternoon for a maternity fair, and it was on sale for $745 (reg $895). They don't sell these to the public but instead to educational nurses, docs, maternity professionals (not of the same kind as Bristol) to educate people what a real pregnancy feels like to someone who isn't pregnant. Looking at the Gusty pic, Sarah looked like she was wearing a good one. But she would be more likely to borrow one from CBJ or an OB than to buy one.

But it was the real deal and had the breast pads that made clothes fit like regular clothes would fit over prego features, put pressure on one's bladder, caused backache, etc and weighed 30 lbs. And looked like I was really prego! My wife and I were like twins. But we've seen those for like $39.95 too. The shoulders she has in the pic are accentuated by that jacket. I don't think she was ever photographed wearing that jacket. I think it's just a larger size of the black jackets she had in her wardrobe, with the sleeves rolled up. It's not even maternity wear, and I wouldn't be shocked if it still had the tags in the sleeve and that she returned it the week following this pic. Which was after her pregnancy, since she started her labor 3 1/2 days later. Started her "labor, allegedly", anyway.

Anon55

6/9/2011 01:02:15 pm

@jeff. Yep, here is one of those expensive pregnancy bellies.
http://empathybelly.org/OrderForm2011.pdf

It's $699 and comes with: One Main Torso Garment; Two Pregnant Breasts; One Rib Belt; One Suspended Weight; One Vinyl Bladder; Two Insert Weights; One Bladder Pouch and One Maternity Smock.

Ouch. Sounds complicated. Now I understand why Palin only saved the belly for special occasions (like her tête-à-tête with Gusty) and mostly relied on scarves and square pillows.

I also like Jeff's suggestion that perhaps Palin borrowed the belly from Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson. The makers of the patented Empathy Belly say at the website: "Over the last fifteen years our agency has distributed 20,000 Empathy Bellies to medical, education and social service professionals throughout the United States . . . We sell "the belly" as part of a comprehensive teaching module, and therefore ONLY to professionals and institutions such as doctors, nurses, hospitals, prenatal educators, medical and nursing schools, counselors, teachers of junior and senior high schools, museums, college and universities, social workers, public health clinics, family planning agencies and a variety of social service programs."

More questions for Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson: "Did you ever lend Sarah Palin an Empathy Belly?"

Bonus -- here's an article from Parenting Magazine about a father's experience wearing a empathy belly.http://www.parenting.com/article/the-day-dad-was-pregnant
Apparently, the manufacturer suggests you wear it for no longer than 3 hours a day.

6/9/2011 01:23:00 pm

OMG, Dr. L. is Mooselini's twin. Cutesy mom of five, one adopted with DS. Right-wing religious media personality.

Several pro-Palin posts here: DrGinaLoudon.com

Several past mentions of Loudon at Paligates by Patrick. You can use search feature there to find them. I recall the Vanity Fair issue, where writer Gross mistook her son for Trig and Palinbots trashed him and discredited his article.

Wholy Mary is beginning to make sense. Mowing finished. Time for that wine.

Jeff

6/9/2011 01:42:52 pm

@B,
Based on Bill McAllister's (BM) reaction to Brad's paper when Brad sent him a copy for comment prior to publication, I can understand why Brad's opinion would lean toward BM's having released the photos. Based on who had the most skin in the game, I definitely wouldn't rule BM or Todd & Sarah to have put them out. Since we know who directly benefited, whoever posted the pics did it for Sarah. If Carpenter would pop up on the radar, it might be helpful to hear what he knows if anything. Both of the camera guys could very well be as ignorant of what occurred, if they were kept in the dark and BM orchestrated this whole deal. I'm trying to keep as many doors open on this episode bc this "interview" is the only source of the prego pics of her belly ready to pop. If Carpenter is really out of the loop, I would think he would be open to talking to media, since he is still a "free agent." I haven't heard yet what he is doing officially for a job, but apparently he is pretty talented. I don't know. We'll see if the emails give us some additional info. I hope so. I have so many nodes on my "decision tree" that have come to an abrupt halt, just as everybody seems to have. Have a good evening,

Jeff

KMiller

6/9/2011 01:54:45 pm

SLQ said, "Palin knew photos were taken at the RGA conference....of course, they conflict with the flight attendant reports that the stage of her pregnancy was not visibly discernible."

Hmm. Maybe we should look a little closer at the airlines. She obviously got on board every flight without that big fake pregnancy belly.....if she HAD been wearing it, she would have needed a seatbelt extender.

Jeff

6/9/2011 02:01:01 pm

anon55,

Check the vid where Gusty "explains" the pics and interview. I believe she identifies her cameraman as Scott Valentine. KTVA had another cameraman, named Scott Smith, but according to Gusty, Valentine did this shoot.

I meant to but it out earlier, but I apparently I truncated the post.

Either way, I might tuck my shirt in unless I was on my way home after happy hour at 2:00am. He must've had a helluva day. Andrea looks a little more fresh than him. What the hell has he been doing, carrying stuff to their taxis for some of the legislators to hustle a few dollars? Casual is one thing, he looks like he's slept in that shirt on the floor for 2 nights.

Not that I haven't looked worse, but it was in my college pre-cell phone camera days, when there was easier deniability. "Nope, that wasn't me. I was home studying last night..."

Anon55

6/9/2011 02:36:05 pm

CORRECTION - I believe the KTVA photographer is Scott Favorite, not Scott Smith.

I just listened again to Ms. Gusty's on-air segment where she "debunked" the conspiracy and she referred to the photographer as Scott Favorite, who is a cameraman at the station. Apparently, there is also a cameraman named Scott Smith at the station.

Anon55

6/9/2011 02:38:49 pm

Here's Scott Favorite's Twitter feed.
http://twitter.com/#!/ScottFavorite

Maybe we should all Twitter him?

Bobcat Logic

6/9/2011 03:02:37 pm

Before we leave the "Dr." Gina Louden/baby swapping topic, I'd like to know if any of you saw the link to an Apocalyptic Fundie web site that appeared in a comment to one of (I think) Gryphen's blog posts?

The link led to a site with ravings about how "End Times" would be preceded by a lot of Fundie baby swapping, so that women who were not known to be pregnant would suddenly appear to have infants, and vice versa.

Any one else recall this, or still have the link?

Lidia17

6/9/2011 11:02:15 pm

@B, I hadn’t thought of it in that way… I’m not saying that the Gusty shot wasn’t staged, just that I don’t think that it needed to have been **after the fact**.

And of course an AK “full Gusty” belly is worth more than a TX “full Gusty”. ;-))

@Ottoline, no, I didn’t find anything that’s at the level of resolution of the Gusty photos, but I did get the sense from the belly *shape* that it was different from her earlier flatter and more square-ish padding (seen in where she is bending over in the grey coat next to the young girl and in the belly-thumping scene with Elan Frank). At the RGA, I believe she was wearing the Gusty belly, because it just seemed rounder, protruding from the jacket.

@JillyG Over at Bree’s there was a fleeting glimpse of a video of one of the book signings with a very animated DS kid in a blue jacket, who waved and made eye contact, completely unlike what Tri-G seemed capable of at the time. People were trying to get ahold of this clip and analyze it, but like so much else, it disappeared. I remember seeing it, but it was before the time when I started archiving material. I don’t know if anyone saved it, and Bree took down her whole blog plus whatever links/archives she had, unfortunately. I wish she had turned that material over to one of the other Palin blogs.

@LTA, yes, I think it absolutely was a set-up. They made a big stink about that honest mistake, didn’t they? Thanks for the laugh about hospital “eligibility”… that letter is certainly a hoot, but I missed that one!

@Jeff, thanks for adding your extra research. I wouldn’t put that much stock in the flip-flops: I grew up in the Northeast and went to college with folks who would wear shorts and sandals, or even go barefoot, in the winter. I might opt for some Tevas in the rain if I didn’t want to ruin my “nice” shoes. Depends on what the work culture calls for up there. Maybe she figures usually that her feet won’t be in the on-air shot?

The scheduling is weird, for all the reasons you state. What was happening between 3 and 5? Why wouldn’t Sarah just meet with the reporters at 3? Would it take her a whole two hours to get into her “full Gusty” gear? Or was she just waiting for the place to clear out sufficiently? I have to add, though, that Sarah’s agenda can be misleading, because we have no way of knowing when information was added, before or after the fact. It seems to have been used as an agenda as well as diary looking backward.

Who Knows?

6/10/2011 12:26:45 am

Check this out!!!

http://twitter.com/#!/BreePalinOMG/following

http://twitter.com/#!/BreePalinOMG/followers

lilly lily

6/10/2011 04:12:53 am

Little boy blue, was animated, friendly and interactive with the crowd, totaly unlike the usual Trig, less can I use the word in this day and age, retarded. He also didn't seem to have the pronounced tongue thrust of Trig. When I saw the handsome little boy, I said "a Ringer" to myself.

It looked remarkably similar to Trig, but completly unlike his usual behavior in any way. I always called him to myself "Little Boy Blue."

Perhaps the usual prop child was heavily drugged all the time during the book tour, who knows, I don't. Sarah Palin is capable of anything. She certainly didn't have his welfare i mind, anymore than she seems to consider her favorite child Pipers needs during the One Nation fiasco.

6/10/2011 09:59:09 am

Lilly lily, I remember Little Boy Blue. He looked similar to Trig, but he was definitely a different child. I don't know where his picture is or how to link it.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Bill McAllister et al.,

Leave a Reply.

Laura Novak

Blogs I Read

Categories

Archives