Laura Novak
  • Welcome
  • About
  • NYTs
  • Scribd
  • Murder
  • Clarity
  • Contact

Bristol Times Two - Guest Post by Allie, RN

7/26/2011

69 Comments

 
Sarah Palin claims that she physically delivered a baby April 18, 2008.  Is that the Ironclad Truth or is it Frontier Fiction?  In Part 1, I argued that the weaknesses in her story point toward fiction.  The details don’t add up.  However, the ironclad evidence for proof one way or the other is still elusive, primarily because of privacy laws.

In this Part 2, I am going to present a hypothetical timeline that excludes Sarah Palin as the natural mother to the child we know as Trig.  I want you to open your mind, consider it, and give us your feedback.

In the world of Architecture, there is the concept of “drivers”.  Drivers are the facts and variables that one has to work around to plan a building.  They might be load-bearing pillars, location of elevators, heating/AC, electrical, communication or regulations stipulating what the building must have.  I am going to take the information I have and approach it from the point of view of what facts and variables drive the birth narrative.  I am going to use dates, legal documents, photos and basic knowledge of human physiology to explain what I think occurred.  You’ll notice I am not going to apply much in the way of statements by people involved – if I miss something crucial, let us know.  Kind of Joe Friday’ish, but I WILL take some leaps.  And I am going to start at the end with the Petition for Custody of Tripp.

On February 16, 2009, Greta Van Susteren interviewed Bristol and Tripp was introduced to the world, so we know he existed on that day.  Doubt has been cast on his birth date just like Trig’s.  We have no birth certificate; just a dubious article in People with questionable sourcing.  We have an undated photograph of a presumed Tripp being held by Levi with Levi wearing an ID/security bracelet typical of new fathers.  However, we do have evidence: 

In the Petition for Custody filed by Bristol Palin on November 4, 2009, via her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska Third Judicial District at Palmer under the heading “Factual Overview” is this opening paragraph: “On December 27, 2008, Bristol Palin gave birth to Tripp Johnston-Palin. It is undisputed that Levi [Johnston – stated earlier in the petition] is Tripp’s father.  Although the parties were at one time engaged, they did not marry.  Subsequent to Tripp’s birth the couple terminated their personal relationship.”

There is also a Child Custody Jurisdiction Affidavit that appears to be filled out in Bristol’s handwriting and she signed the form under penalty of perjury.  It states that, “I, Bristol Palin, say on oath or affirm under penalty of perjury that: 1. The following child(ren) are the subject of the present custody proceedings: Child’s Name: Tripp E. Johnston-Palin, Place of Birth: Wasilla, Birthdate: 12/27/08, Sex: M.”  She only indicates one child.

Yes, I know people lie in court all the time.  But, there are two facts that could easily be disputed and a third one that would just take a little longer.  If Levi read this petition and knew the facts were stated incorrectly, he could do the following: as Tripp’s father he could go to the county courthouse and obtain his own copy of Tripp’s birth certificate to dispute the DOB; he could request and produce a copy of a marriage license; and he could demand DNA testing to prove paternity.  He could have done this anonymously through his attorney.  But, he did not dispute the facts and in fact, he noted in his legal statements that he agreed with them.  Also, both attorneys are officers of the court and both attorneys signed the legal documents.  If either or both of them signed their names to false statements, the simple truth is they could be disbarred, even in Frontier Alaska.  Just a little levity there. 

So Tripp was born on December 27, 2008, apparently at or close to term.  That means he was conceived in early April 2008, around the 5th. 

As far as Trig is concerned, it means one of two things:  either Bristol is not Trig’s mother or Trig was born earlier than April 18, 2008 and she could be his mother.  The latter scenario means that the photography session with the Heaths and the media was contrived. 

The former scenario means that either we’re completely off base and Sarah is his natural mother or someone else is and it isn’t Bristol.  Frankly, I am not sold on going too far afield from those two possibilities.  Let’s explore the possibility that Trig was born earlier and that Bristol is his birth mother and Sarah is his adoptive mother.  I am going to use a conception date of June 9, 2007 (LMP May 26th) with a due date around March 1, 2008.  
Picture

The Alaska first family (“Christmas”) photo supports that Bristol would have been about 12-14 weeks pregnant.  The undated but possibly October ’07 photo of Bristol with a snug stretchy green top supports that she was 4-6 weeks more advanced in her pregnancy.  She was home-schooled and absent from regular school in the fall and winter of 2007, the so-called mononucleosis absence.  

Picture
There is a 2/6/08 email to her mother that she is in a library thinking it would be a great idea for Piper to get a cell phone so she, Bristol, could text her, Piper.  She had a car accident on February 8th; I am ignoring the statement that a witness said she didn’t look pregnant – it could have been a friend or supporter, so we have to discount that.  A car accident, even a minor one, can stimulate labor.  That moment before impact produces the release of stress hormones.  The critical factor is whether those stress hormones might have been produced in significant enough amounts to precipitate labor.  The reason for that is hypothesized that those hormones send a signal to the brain that the intrauterine environment has become hostile to the survival of the fetus and the fetus would be better off out.  It is a primitive physiological reaction that can produce a severely premature infant.  I think she may have been thrown into labor that may have waxed and waned for a few days and then delivered sometime around the 10th to the 15th.  We have pretty consistent notations that Trig’s birth weight was a little over six pounds.  I am going to use six pounds.  A pregnancy is considered at term at 37 weeks and at that time the baby typically weighs around five and one-half pounds, give or take a few ounces.  I think Trig was born between 37-38 weeks.  The birth announcement card email says he was 18” at birth, again consistent with 37-38 weeks.  

Picture
It is very difficult to judge the size of the baby in all the photos where he is wrapped in a blanket.  I am excluding the Heath photo for the moment.  One of the difficult set of facts to reconcile about the photos is how Trig looked so big wrapped up in what we know is the hospital and so dinky in the photos where he is in an onesie at home.  How could they be the same baby and how could the February and May dates work?  I don’t minimize the challenge here.  It’s a bitch.  Here are the three variables that I am tossing around: 1) you can’t estimate body size well from a photo of a baby wrapped in a blanket and unwrapped babies reveal that they are indeed smaller than a wrapped baby appears, 2) we know that newborns lose weight in the first week of life, and 3) the dating we have of the photographs in question is highly unreliable and images can be manipulated with software.  I think it is possible that the photos we have of a baby being held by Levi in his green shirt and Willow, all in the hospital, and the photo of Piper at home holding the blanketed baby are all the same baby who is a newborn.  I think the unwrapped baby is the same baby one to two weeks later.  All taken in Feb. ’08.  I think the “Johnston” tattoo was photoshopped in.  The cake may have been to celebrate the baby’s birth or photoshopped or irrelevant.  What is odd about the sepia-toned picture of Sarah and Sadie and the baby is two-fold.  The proportions between the size of Sadie and the baby as a unit and Sarah next to them are off a little.  Sarah seems too big.  If you look closely at the two photos of Sadie holding the baby, they look like they were taken just moments apart, as though Sadie looked up, photo snapped, she looked down and another snapped right away.  I say that because her hands seem like they are in the same placement in both photos and it just seems to me that during the staging of Sarah being in the picture that Sadie would just naturally shifted her hold a little at least.  

Picture
Regardless what it was that prompted Sarah to change her behavior, it seems to have begun in the second half of February 2008 in service of presenting a pregnancy and then a newborn child.  From around 2/23 to 2/26, she was in Washington, met with the McCains and attended a conference.  When she was on camera, she had her scarves to her waist; when she was relaxing, she was apparently in jeans.  The official announcement we know was March 5, 2008.  As I said in Part 1, her attempts to appear pregnant were pathetic, but the camouflage obscured her abdominal appearance enough for a fake pregnancy to not be easily or definitively identifiable to the casual observer.  She didn’t even bother to move like a late pregnant woman. 

Picture
In late February, Trig was under six pounds.  Six or seven weeks later on April 18th, could he have weighed seven pounds, maybe seven and one-half pounds?  I think the baby that Sally Heath is holding on 4/18 and Todd Palin is holding on 4/21 is a bigger version of the baby we saw in the photos I mentioned above who has grown in the intervening weeks.  

Picture
Okay, now I am really going to “go off the reservation” into crazy talk for a minute.  I think there MIGHT be a viable explanation for the ruffled ear.  The enlarged photographs are very hard to interpret accurately.  There is just too much distortion.  Of course the ear cartilage is rather pliable in utero.  One thing that could have happened is that the ear got folded over severely up against the pelvic bones and gotten some adhesions holding the fold in place.  After a reasonable amount of time, those adhesions could have been snipped and allowed the cartilage to spring back into a more normal appearance with more corrective surgery being done when he is older.  Another thing that could have happened is something called amniotic bands.  Sometimes some amniotic fluid thickens in places and gets fibrous and becomes a pressure point on sensitive tissue.  For example, I used to work with an anesthesiologist who had two fingers that were half as long as normal fingers because of pressure from the amniotic fluid.  The fingers did not develop properly and were essentially amputated in utero.  In looking very closely at the ruffled ear, I can see where the edge of the cartilage looks folded over in three places I think and I can envision those spots being clipped with scissors, a little cauterization to stop the bleeding, maybe a tiny suture.  I have not talked to any ENT surgeon about the ruffling, and I am no expert and, certainly if that is a major malformation, then that is another ballgame.  If the defect is relatively minor and repairable, then the photographic evidence as it currently exists blends pretty well together, I think, and helps us stay out of the borrowing babies, stealing babies, multiple babies, switching babies, etc. territory.

Lastly, a mid-February delivery date allows enough time for Bristol’s body to heal enough for sex, to begin ovulating again and conceive in the first week of April.  Back-to-back babies as a teenager.  That’s a real Wild Ride!                              

69 Comments
Viola-Alex
7/26/2011 10:14:41 am

Simply stated. Downright occam-razorish. Put like this, Allie, it all seems so diabolically do-able. Why wouldn't Sarah we know think up such a scheme in February, even though a bunch of people already knew of the baby's existence? Thank you.

--
As far as the "johnston" tattoo being photoshopped in: didn't this photo first appear on Tira's tv show? The blogs at that time thought Mercede had sent a message, since that photo had never been seen before, and because it was supposed to be shown as Levi and Tripp (I believe).

Mercede shows herself a photoshopping fool. With the baby footprints and the sepia-toned photo of herself and Sarah. (My 84 yr old stepfather has just discovered the sepia feature on his photoshop and loves making everything b/w.) And damn if you don't have a point. Stare at that photo, and Sarah's head floats there like it could have been photoshopped onto someone else's body. Willow?

Imagine Sarah's freakout if she found out that she's on Mercede Johnston's MySpace page.

Reply
Original Lee
7/26/2011 11:03:32 am

Very straightforward, Allie. I like it as a very clean explanation for a lot.

The court documents are very interesting to me, because the attorneys would only be in trouble if they knew the dates were wrong. AFAIK, if Bristol picked a date and coerced Levi into agreeing to it, there would be no way for the officers of the court to know any different. Birth certificates are usually not used in family court unless there is an issue that can be resolved with a birth certificate (i.e., paternity or identity claims). I don't think the system is set up to handle a situation where the parents agree as to identity but also agree to a fake birthdate that is a few weeks within the real one. OTOH, your timetable works so well with the 12/27 date that you are probably right in using it as a basis.

I dispute your take on Ruffles, though, because it does look as if there is more of a deformity than just the ruffle - somehow it looks as if the hole and the ear don't match, which would take more extensive surgery to get to the "perfect" ears of August 2008. I agree that the procedure as you described would take care of the outer ear, but I am still bothered by the hole next to the ear in the above photo.


Reply
Ottoline
7/26/2011 11:25:09 am

Sure, interesting to speculate, but it doesn't matter. Doesn't matter who gave birth to Trig. Doesn't matter what Bristol did or didn't do. So many of the et ceteras do not matter.

What matters is that Palin was not pregnant. And although many people do not accept the Mar 14 photo as complete and valid proof that Palin did not deliver a baby 5 weeks later, this photo proof would be accepted in court.

No one yet has even ATTEMPTED to explain how that photo could co-exist with a pregnancy as Palin stated it.

Let's face it: this is proof. People might want MORE proof, as I do. Fine. But the Mar 14 photo is ENOUGH proof.

Why no MSM? Because of a gag order that is amply explained as we learn more about Rupert's mgmt facts.

(Cone of silence*) + (gag order) + (other stuff we have yet to learn, like maybe payoffs, blackmail, threats) = (keeping it in the pre-scandal** stage). Because too many others have a lot to lose for their enabling behavior, whether active (= evil) or passive (= stupid) or unknowing (= even more stupid).

I no longer care about the exact logistics/dynamics of this depressing hoax. I now think when it all come out eventually it will be slightly different than anything we've thought, but the main idea will be the same.

I do care very much the the hoax comes to MSM attention because it's all part of this huge effort to do the WRONG thing (like this v serious manufactured debt ceiling crisis) in order to sink Obama, keep that very low tax rate for our wealthiest, and -- oh, yeah! -- sink the U S of A.

___________
*The Scharlott theory.
**The scandal theory John Dean reports on.

Reply
Sandia Blanca
7/26/2011 12:05:49 pm

There's a date error in the 8th paragraph: it says "So Tripp was born on December 27, 2009, apparently at or close to term." That year has to be 2008. Thanks.

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/26/2011 12:11:02 pm

Sandia, Thank you! I made the correction.

Reply
mxm
7/26/2011 12:11:26 pm

I would like to offer a variation of your hypothesis along with some corrections. I posted a comment on another site that investigates babygate.

The stretchy green sweater photo has long ago been dated to 2006, so you need to exclude it as evidence in the 2007 era.

I believe that there were 2 babies. Trig and Ruffles. I am uncertain as to which of the babes is likely the result of Bristol's 2007 pregnancy and would even believe that they could have been twins. I would also believe that if identical twins, both would have Down Syndrome and twin to twin transfusion syndrome could well explain the ear deformity, difference in size, premature births, etc.

Gryphen thoroughly reported on the ear deformity and he did have access to physicians, who assisted in evaluating the photos. I also believe that the dating on the kitchen photos has long been established as Levi's 18th birthday. Laura also has had a guest physician post on the ear deformity.

May 3, 2008 - Triggybear photographs snapped by Levi’s mother, Sherry Johnston on Levi’s 18th birthday. Johnston family celebrates Levi’s birthday at the Palin home, frail infant with ruffled right ear in photographs

May 4, 2008 - Kristan Cole hosted a baby shower for Sarah and Trig, Palin and Trig magazine cover shoot done. Infant Trig has ruffled right ear.

________

Posted 9/22/10 on Palingates:

Count from what we do have and that is the Sept 2007 family Christmas photo-----

The girl looks to be 16 weeks pregnant. Just for the sake of discussion, assume that she conceived May 15 - due date would be Feb 5.

If she delivered Dec 15, at 7 1/2 months, in Anchorage, she could attend school in January and visit her baby. She would have no problem conceiving Tripp on April 5, 2008 and deliver him on Dec 28, 2008.

She was in school in Jan and did not appear pregnant, she was in an auto accident in Feb and did not appear pregnant.

From the chronology that we can document:

May 14, 2007, Bristol Palin wrote in the myspace comments on Johnny Chandler's page: "haha, my mom was asking me who i was on the phone with last night, and she said she heard everything i was saying...now she thinks im pregnant. ...

May 16, 2007, Bristol Palin to Johnny Chandler: "its fine, I got my phone taken away anyways. but i didn't do anything, ive been packing all my stuff, which is taking forever..what have you been doing? tomorrow im going squirle hunting! call me tonight, i might have my phone. (heart symbol)"

May 17, 2007, in another message to Johnny Chandler, Bristol addressed the issue again: "haha, sorry i still had my phone taken away, but i got it back today, so you can call whenever..(heart symbol)"

June 18, 2007 - William Kristol, Fred Barnes get off a cruise ship in AK and are charmed by the lady governor

June 25, 2007 – Bristol is now "a mother duck for that baby."

NOTE: At the time of the posting, my comment was endorsed by Patrick. Whether he would still support the chronology is unknown. (<i>mxm, that's a very good time frame, definitely one of the best working theories. According to what we know, I believe that this could come extremely close to the truth.</i>
________

The dates could shift a bit and still fit - may make more sense that she conceived late April or earlier in May. Then the chatter with Johnny makes more sense.

I am not at all convinced that

Reply
Alaska RavenTrax
7/26/2011 12:36:20 pm

It always ends of the same. We need the birth certificate...At this point it is beating the dead horse with the same speculation from all the blogs over the last several years. It might be good to keep the issues alive, however for some of us who have followed closely,I would like to see something conclusive, or drop the matter. We are becoming just as embarrassing, as Palin with all the stories.

Reply
comeonpeople
7/26/2011 01:01:50 pm

There is no way I can reconcile or agree that the ruffled ear baby is the same baby as at the RNC or as shown as Tri-G today.
It will be fun when the truth is revealed (and it Will come out Sarah) to see how close our specualtions were.
We need to award "golden bumpits" prizes to the winner(s).

Reply
jk
7/26/2011 01:18:20 pm

Why would Mercede, or anyone else, have photoshopped Palin's head onto somebody else's body?
But also too, I agree with Alaskan Raven Tax: this scenario is a variation on a theme that has been around for some time. Having looked at a bunch of baby ears and baby faces I believe there were at least two babies playing the role of Trig. But the real question, as ART says, is can anything be proven?

Reply
V ictoria link
7/26/2011 03:20:45 pm

I think it's highly unlikely that there were twins. Why would they hide that, if there were? Having twins would be charming and appealing to many! The only reason that occurs to me is that Palin, if she were pregnant with twins, would have to be a lot bigger - but since the MSM has never seriously questioned whether she was pregnant with one, I don't see how SP would worry about closer scrutiny if she claimed to be pregnant with two. Pretty gullible, that MSM. Or simply following the fox.

IMHO either Ruffles was borrowed for the presentation occasion (which explains the puppy is ready reference) or it is as Allie has suggested, and the ear straightened out later.

Reply
Ivyfree
7/26/2011 03:27:32 pm

We only say Trig was premature because we were told that, but what is the origin of that fact? Sarah could easily have announced that Trig was premature because she knew she couldn't fake a pregnancy that long and it would explain her not getting as large as she should.

It disturbs me, how willing we are to believe he was premature. We have only the word of a known liar for that "fact."

Reply
Phyllis
7/26/2011 03:58:16 pm

They all lied about that kids name. His name is not Tripp Johnston-Palin.
Bristol made a application for 2009 and 2011 for Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston.

The 2010 Applicant Data is not in alphabetical order and I'm not about to read through hundreds of thousand of names looking for his name.

Reply
Ginger
7/26/2011 05:01:55 pm

@Alaska Raven Trax

Sorry to tell you this, but I think she has a birth certificate. Read the e-mail from the SOA, Benefits Div., dated May 21, 2008 to..."Gov. Sarah Palin." Her insurance company is asking her for her newborn's b/c. They needed it within 60 days of the baby's birth or they weren't going to pay "ANYMORE" claims. Stop and think of how it is possible...or why...they are asking her for a b/c when we know it was Bristol who gave birth. Why? Thanks to Dr. CBJ, the paperwork has to be in her name. If the medical records are in her name, why wouldn't the b/c be too?

A lot of people (including bloggers) have speculated she did not send in a b/c. Personally, knowing how cheap Sarah is, I don't think she could get that puppy to them fast enough.

For over two years, I've tried to tell people Bristol was not pregnant a second time. We just learned she was on birth control pills since she was 15. Levi's ex-girlfriend has stated they never had sex without him using a condom. Under these circumstances, can someone please tell me how in the hell Bristol got pregnant "twice" in one year?

Thanks...

Reply
Heidi3
7/26/2011 06:43:06 pm

To corroborate mxm's statement above,

("The stretchy green sweater photo has long ago been dated to 2006, so you need to exclude it as evidence in the 2007 era."), this is from the ADN's files:

http://www.adn.com/2008/08/29/v-gallery2/509850/sarah-palin-biography.html?/2008/08/29/v-gallery2/509852_a509987/gov-palin-gallery.html

In this 2006 photo taken by Marc Lester of the ADN, it states that Bristol is age 16, which she turned on 10-18-06. It is leafless and wintry-looking outside. The only conclusion to draw is that this was an earlier pregnancy (it doesn't look like too many french fries to me - not at age 16.) Just look at Bristol's sheepish expression.
- - - - - - - - - -

Babygate may never be fully unraveled, certainly not without court-ordered DNA testing. We have "trignostic" Joe McGinniss saying in his 7-27-11 post that he'll broach the Trig birth story in "The Rogue"; he's hinted broadly that he thinks it was a hoax. We have Levi's book coming out 9-20-11. Regardless of what others may think about Levi, I've always felt he was an honest kid. Yet, we have no idea what he'll divulge in his book. Gryphen says a reputable author "Fred" is releasing a Babygate book this Fall. Another Babygate book is rumored to be in the works. We also have Floyd Orr's excellent babygate timeline published in his book "Paradigm Shift". All of these resources will ultimately mesh, but as ottoline (and many others) have always shouted from the rooftops, the central crux is that SARAH PALIN DID NOT GIVE BIRTH TO TRIG. This was a provable hoax, and that is the ONLY point that needs to be 'hammered' into the public consciousness.

Rupert Murdoch's empire is gradually crumbling, which means Brad Scharlott's "Spiral of Silence" should also disintegrate at some point. But because this was a (IMO) convoluted plan - keep in mind the death of Dar Miller, the church arson fire specifically targeting the metal file cabinet containing birth and adoption records, and the McCain campaign's concerted efforts to scrub all photos - I cannot state unequivocally that we'll ever know every last detail. Too many people have their fingers in the evil scheme to advance their Puppet Sarah for their own nefarious and democracy-killing agendas.

In telling her fabricated "birth" story via her book and to thousands of people at countless $100,000 speeches, Sarah Palin has committed major fraud. This, and all of the other Palin atrocities cannot be allowed to fade away. Even if Sarah's preposterous aspirations for future office are thwarted, she has caused horrible damage to our country. She needs to pay, at the very least, by public derision and shame. But since she is shameless, jail might work, too. I applaud all of the authors and commenters who are working hard to expose the dangerous narcissist.

Thanks for allowing me to state the obvious, and I apologize for straying into generalities. "It's a bitch", Allie said, but I know we'll ultimately prevail.





Reply
Allie
7/26/2011 07:15:48 pm

Thanks, V-A. The date that the photo of Levi in the green shirt was stamped on the back of it was mid May, 2008. While the images could have been uploaded any time after they were taken and posted on the computer sites, hard copies could have been made much later. A date stamp on the back would represent the date it was printed, not taken or uploaded. So the actual dates are highly unreliable in my view.

@ Original Lee, my assessment about the date of Tripp's birth from the legal documents is this: all you say is true, but, consider two things. 1) Bristol filled out a form herself and signed it under penalty of perjury (and granted, she may not have even thought twice about that) and 2) both knew that the custody battle was going to be that, a battle, and I am saying that Levi could have easily disputed the DOB upon provocation from BP and upended her apple cart. Witness her attempt to seal the records. Right there, Levi could have thrown up a roadblock if the DOB was stated inaccurately. So, the threshold between L & BP was very low, so I tend to think the date is accurate. Plus, I don't think a lawyer could stay out of trouble by pleading ignorance about a date he should have known.

About the ear. What if those aren't holes but look like it because of the distortion? What if those are shadows and that is the back of the ear we can barely see? If they are holes, I agree with you and that opens up a whole nother can of worms. As far as what appears to be a hole in front of the entire ear, I don't know what to make of that other than distortion. I have never seen a defect like that in front of the ear in the 8 or 9 thousand newborns that I've seen. It would suggest that there is a whole lot more genetically wrong with that newborn than "merely" down syndrome. Yes, Ds babies have messed up ears, usually low set, but holes in the face in front of the ear? No.

Reply
OzMud link
7/26/2011 07:19:49 pm

(1) The Christmas photo of the first family on the stairs was taken in a September photo shoot. This is a correction I had pointed out to me by a commentor when I posted these same photos last year. The date was later confirmed.

(2) I had a cousin who was beyond the definition of a good Catholic. He and his wife raised ten children together, all from single births. The first two were born literally back to back, in the same year. At the time Tommy and his wife were having what they thought was 'safe sex' because there is an old wives tale that says one cannot conceive following birth or while breastfeeding. They confessed (red-faced) that they had resumed sexual relations within a month of delivery, while Louise was in fact still 'bleeding'. They honestly thought this was like a 'free time' to behave like rabbits.

A L O T of teenagers, especially ones who are only taught abstinence as birth control, fall prey to this same erroneous belief. It's been my declaration from the beginning that this would explain both bubs belonging to Bristol, and both being born in the same year. That after the birth of the first, Bristol and Levi thought they had this 'free time' to have sex without condoms or consequences.

There are two emails at the beginning of Ausgust 2007 which confirm that for the space of 7-10 days, Sarah was on a road trip with Willow. (She'd been unable to reach Todd by phone and asked for help locating him.)

This attracted my attention because ugust 9 was the only possible date I could have conceived my May baby born the following year. On a lark I backtracked using the number of weeks (most doctor's track by weeks rather than months these days) and while it certainly can't be confirmed, it is ironic to note that a baby born 4 weeks early, on April 18, would quite probably be conceived during the 10th and 17th of the previous August. Precisely the time Sarah was on the road with Willow.

It's not evidence - but it is certainly something to think about. Only ignorant Sarah would fail so badly at doing the math :)

Reply
Allie
7/26/2011 08:42:42 pm

Ok, Ottoline, you gotta get a grip. I share your frustration, but we aren't there yet.

1) If you think the traditional media is going to take the risk of declaring a pregnancy hoax based on the March 14th photo, then, forgive me, you are out of your ever lovin' mind.

2) What would your explanation be if you laid down those 3/14 photos and someone without your depth of knowledge of the hoax laid down the Gusty photo of 4/13? Dueling photos which cancel each other out. Do you think a MSM skeptic is going to respond to your story of a pregnancy prosthesis with, "Oh, now I get it."

3) News has its own rhythms and cycles that often, maybe even usually, defies logic. Those first few days were the best opportunity to plant the seed of doubt about the pregnancy. The rhythm was broken 5 days later with the announcement of Bristol's next pregnancy, along with the massive scrubbing and blackmailing. The facts were elusive and didn't fit together easily and convincingly so your basic dodo bird could grasp them. The window of opportunity closed. The MSM probably figured they would catch the story on the flip side, when she put herself out there as a candidate, which she hasn't done. Personally, I doubt she ever will.

4) Rarely does the MSM break news. It reports breaking news. We have to lower our expectations of the what they can do with a story that makes jello look like granite. WE right here on this website have to figure it out the best we can in an easily understood manner so we're ready when our news cycle comes. You're already there, but think of the bell curve. We're all huddling together on one side of the curve. The Sea O' Pee is on the opposite side. The majority is in the bell and we gotta ring it!

Reply
Allie
7/26/2011 09:03:30 pm

@ART

The birth certificate won't help since it is a revised document to reflect an adoption.

Reply
Ivyfree
7/26/2011 09:44:44 pm

BTW, I think the explanation about the ear is a little bit farfetched. Yes, maybe it happened that way- but how many lucky coincidences can there be involving one birth? How likely is it that Sarah's alleged child would have an ear malformation but it could be corrected so easily?

Just because something can be explained away doesn't make that explanation true. Coincidence on coincidence on coincidence, all in an effort to say "maybe Sarah did give birth to him." And nobody can explain the March 14th picture.

Reply
LisaB2595
7/26/2011 11:08:15 pm

I wouldn't trust a birth certificate at this point. I want medical records.

Reply
Lilybart
7/26/2011 11:33:12 pm

The one thing we KNOW is that Palin was NOT pregnant. There are two or three photos that make that very clear.

Simple explanation is that she covered for Bristol to keep her Fundy cred. Less simple is who the father might be, Keith Johnston left town and that would the only possible father that would make the Johnston family go along with the ruse or face statuatory rape charges.

And if Palin cared about her kids she would end this speculation and we would all stop digging for dirt. It is long past time to prove who Trig is, for the sake of her family. I know she hates us and thinks no one deserves proof and I understand that, yet her family is being discussed in minute detail and that is HER fault.

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/27/2011 12:26:26 am

Allie had provided me with this link earlier that got lost in the shuffle. It is to a PDF of the petition for custody, in case anyone wants to read it:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/sites/default/files/images/media/files/news/politics/palin_1.pdf

Thanks again, Allie, for taking the time to offer your thoughts and pen this post. Math, and anecdotal evidence about others who have had back-to-back babies make this a plausible scenario. I don't know that it's the answer, or that we'll know the answer. But you make a good case. Thank you again, Allie.

Reply
Ottoline
7/27/2011 12:29:55 am

Allie, Allie -- the two photos together DO tell the story. Anyone who thinks about it for a moment (I know, that rules out a big part of our audience) can realize that the Mar 14 photo cannot precede the Apr 13 photo. Cannot. Because you cannot be briefly unpregnant (flat) 5 weeks before giving birth. Somehow, as a nurse I thought you would know that.

Forget the fake belly, forget all the other details. The two photos tell the story. The Apr 13 photo, with great irony, only makes it worse, eliminating that "I didn't show much" argument.

It's an irony that seems to be present in many crimes and their cover-up: the very lie the perp creates to strengthen his story is the thing that brings him down.

Reply
viola-alex
7/27/2011 12:31:25 am

Forgive me, all, for suggesting Mercede could have photoshopped Sarah's head on another's body. I get caught up in the CRAZINESS of all this, and write before I think.

However, I've always thought this group of photos tells a story of its own. These are HAPPY people. Bristol in particular looks happier and more real than in any photo I have seen of her. This is a happy family group that is pleased to have a baby between them. (Granted Levi looks a bit stunned.)

The other two things about this photo group are interesting as well. I'm not a scholar of them, but if my memory serves me, the Levi one popped up later when it appeared on the Tyra show. And why is the Sarah one in sepia? Those two photos demonstrate that somebody loves to tinker with photos, even if just for fun.

What I like about Allie's post is her theory that all was good in the Palin household until later in February. Something caused Palin to lose that granny grin and create a hoax. Whether it was a scheme cooked up on her own or with the blessing of the McCain folks, that's the question.

--

As for why we spin our wheels, there's one good reason. If we let Babygate go, and NO ONE keeps the story running, it will just fade away. Coverage of it, even in speculation, keeps the story alive.

Allie and Laura are fresh minds on the topic. Thank God for them.

Reply
Ottoline
7/27/2011 12:33:31 am

The Mar 14 photo trumps a birth cert and even a medical record; the Mar 14 photo tells the story. DNA? Then we would be in a timing discussion.

Reply
Ottoline
7/27/2011 12:57:13 am

Thank you for shouting, Heidi3. I really appreciate it. Really.

And as much as I agree with you on just about everything, I am coming to think that it's not Palin who I want exposed so much as her enablers. They are the ones who are truly dangerous to us all.

Of course they are also the ones who have the most to lose from exposure of the hoax and their role in it. And they are the ones in a position to keep it forevermore in the "pre-scandal" stage.

We all got into this puzzling over Palin, and how the things we saw with our own eyes did not fit her story, and so we all followed the logistics, timelines, motivation, details and red-herring details. It's hard to stop until all the pieces fit.

But the one thing that makes it all clear are the photos, and esp the Mar 14 photo. No, Allie, they are not mere "duelling photos." Since time immemorial women have tried to conceal AND fake pregnancies. You can do a lot with faking it, and that's pretty easy as far a stuffing a pillow goes, but you can't unstrap a pregnancy, take it off, take a little rest from it, get a nice photo that shows a flat profile. Just not possible. But it takes a minute to realize that.

Reply
lilli
7/27/2011 01:13:05 am

IF Sarah and Todd were the birth parents of Trig she would have given proof a long time ago..so the father could be Track?? Todd?? Levi?? Keith?? even the Trooper brother-in-law who has been stunningly quiet. I think something with criminal implications happened and has been covered up for Sarah's career, maybe not even with Bristol but another underage GIRL with Todd or Track. Just saying...

Reply
V ictoria link
7/27/2011 01:45:07 am

@ottoline - I agree, the enablers are the dangerous ones. But some of them are protecting SP because they are scared, others because they may know but have no proof.

Hoaxes sometimes get revealed at the end just because the hoaxer wants to brag. I just read that a Belgium UFO that even had NASA going was a polystyrene fake.

Does anyone tell the truth?!?

Reply
anonfornow
7/27/2011 02:27:29 am

Interesting theory, but I see a few problems.

The release of the undated photo of Levi in the green shirt holding a Trig that looks just a few weeks younger than the Palin Kitchen Trig has seriously shaken my own pet theory, which had Trig being born very premature in December. I don't think he could have been born in February, as we have reports that Bristol was back in school after the new year.

I'm also leery of theories that need to discount two images as photoshopped. Sarah's head looks weird in that photo simply because she has a weird big head. And Im not sure the Palin/Johnston clan are clever enough to photoshop a birthday cake and Levi's new tattoo into a photo in an attempt to throw people off.

I'm one of those who questions Tripp's birthdate. I still do, since the video of Bristol running over the ice just a few days before his supposed birth shows us an unpregnant teenager. As for the documents filed with the court, the lawyers don't need to have known the truth, and Levi could have been coerced (thru a threat to his mom) into signing. Once he has signed, for him to come back and say, "I lied" would get him in as much trouble as anyone else.

Also, to my eyes, Tripp was a tiny baby, probably premature. I don't think we can assume he was full term; he looks more like 7 1/2-8 months to me, although he is then huge in the interview with Matt.

But I'm with you on the ear. There are other deformities in Ruffle's ear that do match the Trig we see later. It is possible that what appears to be a hole in front of his ear is actually a sore--I remember one of my babies scratched her ear with her nail; it bled like crazy.

Having said all of that, I believe that Bristol is the mother of both Trig and Tripp. It seems that Levi believes he is father to both boys, whether or not he actually is. But their birth dates have been fiddled to muddy the waters, and so far, it's worked. We're like cats chasing our tails.

Personally, I want to know what happened to the baby Bristol was so obviously carrying on DWTS. You don't gain weight in a situation like that and then quickly lose most of it afterwards. Did she lose the baby? Give it away? Is it being hidden? Nothing is right with this family.

Reply
everspring
7/27/2011 04:27:45 am

I've shared my TWIN theory with a few people, but it never gets anywhere. I think Bristol gave birth to twins in early 2008 (March perhaps) when she was hidden away.

Reasons:
- Birthing twins would result in a very early premature birth, making TWIN Trig and Tripp both preemies who may have been hospitalized for quite some time before being released. Sarah adopts down syndrome TWIN Trig April 18, 2008, which looks good to voters. Perhaps the initial plan was to have both twins adopted. Down syndrome baby could not be adopted and Bristol decided to keep Tripp. Now, TWIN Tripp is sequestered until Bristol is 'a bit older and not such an embarrassment to Sarah.' Later, Bristol has to fake a pregnancy so that TWIN Tripp can 'come out of the closet and be seen.' This in turn helps Sarah quash rumors because she can't undo what she has put in motion (wild ride). To me the pics of Bristol when VP Sarah was announced are clearly pics with her wearing an empathy belly.

- Perhaps TWIN Tripp was occasionally substituted for TWIN Trig, thereby explaining the ear, looks and size differences.

- May 2008 photo of Levi with one baby and the arm of another baby – the rest of that second baby is cut out. Cutout baby being TWIN Trig.

- Levi’s sister stated that Levi and Bristol were “trying to get pregnant” right away. Why? Makes no sense! They weren’t even married! Only reason to say that is because they already had TWIN Tripp hidden away somewhere and he would eventually have to surface. Plus I have read accounts where Levi did not want a baby.

- The fake circumstances surrounding Tripp's birth were as bizarre as the ones surrounding Trig's birth. There were absolutely no pictures of Tripp for a couple months after his supposed birth in December of 2008. Again, when Tripp was finally presented to the world, a substitute baby could have been used for awhile.

- In some latter 2009 and 2010 pictures and videos, Tripp appears to be quite large for a baby born in Dec. 2008.

- Also, Tripp appears to be slightly bigger than Trig in many pictures where they are together or being held near each other. Wouldn't you be more likely to see the reverse in size - - Trig 8-9 months larger than Tripp especially early on in their ages? Yes, I know that down syndrome babies can be smaller than other babies, but early on in their ages there would be a difference and Trig would be the larger baby. I don't recall seeing pictures of the two babies together when Tripp is an infant (2-3 months old) and Trig is 9-12 months old. This could have been intentional so we don't see that they are indeed TWINS.

- One last thing, but not specifically related to the twins theory, perhaps Levi isn’t the father of Twins Tripp and Trig. Perhaps Bristol became pregnant by another boy in May of 2007 and they used Levi in their hoax. He was available and he and his family were given hush money. This may be why Levi is not very forthcoming because he is an integral part of the hoax and can’t say too much. However, he manages to say just enough to keep the Palins on their toes and vice versa. There was never going to be an intended marriage. Bristol saves face by saying all the right things: she has a boyfriend, they’re getting married, they want to start a family right away, etc. The Levi-Bristol love story was bought into by everyone and earned them some serious money in the process by all the tabloids.

- We can't rely on any ages and dates that the Palins have floated because they have intentionally covered this up. So much so that they can't keep them straight either based on speeches, books and interviews.

Reply
FEDUP!!!
7/27/2011 05:30:46 am

A couple of comments right off the bat, and I must confess that I did not yet read any of the other comments:

A) The staircase picture was taken in September, not December (There was some documentation on one or more of the blogs regarding this topic, and it has been ascertained that the pic was taken then)

B) 'Ruffles': If he/she only had the ruffled ear(s), then your explanation of folded-over lobe would make sense. However, you are missing the biggest part: The hole where his ear is attached to the head. There is a hole, where there should be skin.

Reply
Yellowgirl
7/27/2011 05:33:39 am

Everspring-
Interesting theory when you lay it all out. Your point about the size difference being backwards is interesting.......... I went to school with twins who had twin to twin transfusion syndrome prior to birth (I think; I didn't know the terminology). At any rate, even though they were IDENTICAL Twins, one was always a LOT larger/taller/robuster than the other one. If you didn't know they were twins you'd have thought they were a year or more apart in age. But because one twin spent months touch-n-go in a hospital w/ heart issues etc.... she just was (is) that much smaller. Haven't seem them for years.... wonder if their sizes have evened out now? At any rate, when I last saw them they were about 6 or 7 and the size issue was still very noticeable.

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/27/2011 05:57:20 am

I also, too, know twins who vary greatly in size. In fact, I know two sets for whom this is a reality. The moms often have a difficult time convincing strangers that they are, in fact, twins.

The imponderable here are the many facets of this story that, if not in existence, or taken out of the equation, would make the mystery easier to solve.

The odd ear; the boobs at the RNC; mono rumors; unclear attendance record; rumors of teen pregnancy. Imagine: had Bristol been enrolled in a private school in Switzerland, would there be any of this speculation?

Had the Johnston family remained in tact, would anyone even go down that road?

Had Sarah not seemed so slender in that black pencil skirt and then had the linebacker shoulders along side Gusty, would it all strike us as so weird?

But as usual, there are the odd photos of Bristol that do nothing to r/o the rumors. There is Sarah's penchant for lying. The implausible wild ride. An oddly mute doctor.

Should Sarah continue her Sarah-Drama in September, I suspect these questions will be resurrected.

If even one of these oddities could be eliminated from the discussion for everyone, the mystery would be that much easier to solve.

Reply
Mhurka
7/27/2011 07:34:40 am

A while back ago I seem to recall an interesting video clip of SP's arrival at an upper midwest airport (I don't remember the name). Immediately upon her arrival a waiting reporter rushed up to her hoping for an interview. As soon as she saw the reporter she immediately (for a few seconds) started to frantically cover up Trig's ear with some of his hair. Odd.

Reply
mistah charley, ph.d. link
7/27/2011 07:49:33 am

the question of whether the sarah-drama will continue in september has been answered


"In the latest indication that her sights are still set on a presidential run, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has accepted an invitation to keynote a Tea Party rally in Waukee, Iowa, on Sept. 3, RealClearPolitics has learned."


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/27/palin_to_keynote_tea_party_rally_in_iowa_110734.html

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/27/2011 08:28:08 am

Thanks, Mistah Charley. So now she's hiding in Alaska immersing herself in policy and strategizing with Todd, as it says toward the end. Yup, that should take care of all the stupid she's exhibited for the past 3 years.

Reply
Bobcat Logic
7/27/2011 08:50:11 am

Interesting news note: John McCain has just spoken out against the right-wingers (i.e. all of the GOP) for misleading the public on the debt ceiling issue. He calls the right-wingers efforts on this front "bizarro."

This, from the man who was forced to "pick" Sarah Palin from obscurity to run with him in 2008.

I think he may be trying to get himself back into the good graces of the reality-based world.

Is this setting the stage for an open repudiation of Palin and the dishonesty of his last campaign?

Reply
Baltimore
7/27/2011 09:15:14 am

@Heidi3
Yes the story should be pursued simply for the fact she was paid 100,000 to perpetuate this hoax. She's a fraud. She needs to be held accountable.
Bill

Reply
jk
7/27/2011 10:16:27 am

Laura, amen to your comment about the layered oddities & unknowns! I do suspect that, should Palin actually run, as a Republican & especially in a 3rd-party bid, we'll finally get not only questions but also real answers from people in the know. There have been a couple of interesting anon posts to the blogs to this effect.
@Bobcat Logic, it's hard for me to imagine that McCain would ever make a strong refudation ;) of his VP pick, because of how incredibly damning that would be of his own judgment. For the same reason I also don't expect anyone in the McCain family to ever speak up. ("Yes, my father was so reckless as to attempt to get an unvetted nutcase within one elderly heartbeat of the highest office in the land"? Uh. No.)

Reply
FrostyAK
7/27/2011 12:07:58 pm

One confusing layer we need to eliminate from the equation. ANYthing that $P said about the subject. Everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie, so maybe we could go at this from the perspective of the exact OPPOSITE of what she said?

To those who said this needs to continue no matter if she runs or not, I agree. Those behind her and the hoax need to be exposed to the light of day. And then to the lights of what used to be a justice system in this country.

Reply
jk
7/27/2011 12:30:15 pm

FrostyAK, <heh>, but it isn't that simple, I think. These NPD Queens lie as casually as they breathe, but they also play all sorts of games, interweaving bits of reality into their stories, etc. Sometimes I think they "borrow" other people's reality. For example Palin said (wrote?) something about her fear that she might lose Trig -- that she had fallen in love with the baby in spite of everything. Maybe she was describing real emotions, but emotions she had for Bristol's baby -- or for one of her own earlier pregnancies. Presumably she also does occasionally tell the truth. With people like this you never know what to believe. I do think that, in cases where we hear more than one version of the truth come out of her mouth, it's a pretty sure bet that there's a real story that we haven't heard.

Reply
comeonpeople
7/27/2011 12:37:43 pm

Scratching head....
Not sure how anyone can think the preauricular hole in Ruffles ear is a shadow in evey picture we have of it, but whatevs. Preauricular sinuses are very common, (esp in african american population.) Ruffles' may look larger as his ears are lowset, so perhaps some anatominal distortion. It is possible the sinus was closed up surgically, but the rest of the ear I highly doubt was fixable at his age.

Reply
TF
7/27/2011 12:51:33 pm

I don't think Sarah's head was photoshopped in the photo of her, Mercede and Trig. She is bent over from the waist, looking up at the camera. Bristol has very nearly the same pose in the picture of her, Trig and Mercede the same day and to the same effect.

Reply
V ictoria link
7/27/2011 02:31:32 pm

@bobcat logic: It's hard for me to imagine McCain coming totally clean. He will never want to admit either such gross deception or being so grossly deceived.

Has he ever admitted being wrong before? Well, yes, with respect to Keating - and not knowing much about the economy. And I'm sure he hated both experiences severely.

I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps Cindy and Meghan will persuade him to behave a little differently.

Reply
PalinHypocrisyOverload
7/27/2011 02:48:57 pm

While I usually don't comment, this post and many of the comments, have pushed me to add my two cents.

1. Allie - thank you for the post with your opinion, based on your expertise. I think we all agree that while none of these expert opinions may be 100% correct, it is important to hear differing views on the crazy Palin pregnancies and how the photo evidence could possibly align with reality.

2. For years, I was convinced that Bristol and Levi were Trig's parents, as well as Tripp's and while I do still see that it's possible, I've come to the realization, through Gryphen's numerous posts, as well as all of the many comments and theories that I've read over the years, that it really doesn't matter. I almost feel as though Bristol as Trig's mother is a red-herring from the GOP or Palin's backers to throw us off the real story, which is that a sitting Governor clearly faked a pregnancy. Anyone faking a pregnancy should land them in a psych ward, but a sitting Governor should be grounds for impeachment - its just that crazy, which brings me to my third point...

3. Having grown up watching soap operas - both day and nighttime, I can almost always predict the plot twists on my favorite shows, which is the only reasonable way I can look at this story anymore. While this is most definitely the most soap-like political story of my lifetime, I think that considering it as if it were a storyline on a soap opera might lead us to more answers, than trying to ration out what happened. As we know from her actions, word (both verbal and written) and history, Sarah Palin is erratic, dramatic, attention-seeking and unstable, which is how every good (ie. interesting) character on soap operas is written. It sounds preposterous, but it seems to me that we should be thinking about the Trig pregnancy, as if it were presented on a soap opera (I'm not sure that the Wild Ride wasn't stolen from a soap).

4. I don't remember which blogger (I'm 95% sure it was a blogger and not a frequent commenter) who took pictures of SP "pregnant" with Trig to her gyno, with the face covered, and inquired as to whether the photos could all be real and of the purported timeline and had her Dr. confirm that it wasn't possible that Palin was as pregnant as she claimed, especially when shown how ridiculous her stomach looked in the various "stages" of pregnancy. I have a great deal of respect for her and while I would never feel comfortable doing this, I did start my own "market research" after hearing the Wild Ride. I started telling the story to every woman whom I was felt comfortable with and who had given birth. I have yet to come across one woman, who I've told the story to, who doubts that Palin faked the pregnancy. With close family and friends, I go out of my way to tell the story, but with others, I only tell it when an appropriate situation arises such as a crazy birth or airplane story or a political debate and people take me seriously, or are too scared to tell me otherwise.

I think the "conspiracy theorist" aspect of "Bristol as Trig's mother" hurts our credibility. However, when I explain it from the viewpoint that there is no way that Sarah was pregnant, based on the Wild Ride, photo and email evidence and then the question of where did Trig come from and what would make Palin fake a pregnancy, everyone doesn't necessarily believe that Bristol is Trig's mom, but they understand why its possible. I wish we as a whole did a better job of presenting that we don't know for sure who Trig's parent's are, we are just trying to come up with reasonable explanations for the litany of lies.

5. To everyone who is trying to figure it all out - thank you and keep up the good work, but I hope that we don't question any theory that might not match up to our own, to such an extent that medical experts and those who are unfamiliar with the story feel like they can't share their opinions or theories.

Reply
Allie
7/27/2011 04:48:14 pm

Some clarifications...

I thought it was well-known that the "Christmas" photo was taken in Sept. '07 so I just said "Christmas"; sorry for any confusion. My point was that her abdomen looks consistent with a conception date of early June. This is even more evident in the outside photo where she stands in profile.

The green stretchy photo is consistent with that stage of pregnancy. I could not find a conclusive year for the photo and did see it labeled as Oct. '07. I left it in because it doesn't deny my theory and if it is from Oct '07, it supports it. If it was definitely taken in Oct. '06, it doesn't change anything, but I am not ready to go down the path of THREE back-to-back pregnancies.

The witness claiming that Bristol was not pregnant at the time of the accident was the other driver who was a (shaken) young man and it was in February when it is cold enough to wear a jacket, so I discount his observation.

Yes, a May due date springs from an August conception. But, that supports Sarah being pregnant, since Bristol would not have looked 12-14 weeks pregnant when the Christmas photo was taken in September if she conceived in August.

Yes, Phyllis, I know Tripp was referred to as Johnston-Palin in the custody papers and only Johnston in the Permanent Fund. Since they weren't married, I don't think anyone would get exercised in the court if the mom attached her own name to her own kid. Incorrect birthdate is another matter, I think.

@ FrostyAK, I find that there is usually a kernel of truth in what $P says; knowing what is the kernel is what is tricky.

I was suggesting that the whole Sarah doesn't fit in the picture, not only her head. And I could be dead wrong on that since there is a similar photo of Bristol bent over. It is Sadie's hands on the baby that make me think something is up with the picture.

Here is the dilemma. That whole group of photos taken the first part of May doesn't fit with the narrative of a pregnancy hoax. They just don't. That is a brand new baby in those photos, 1-2 weeks old, with a deformed ear. If that baby was indeed born on 4/18, then Bristol isn't the mother because she got pregnant in early April with Tripp. So either Sarah is the mother or someone else other than Bristol is. Another possibility is that the pictures are of some other baby and are not part of the pregnancy hoax narrative at all. One other possibility is what I theorize is that the dates of the photos are actually February rather than May. I don't rule out the possibility that the baby is a smokescreen and not Trig at all. However, if Trig is Bristol's, then he was born by February so that she could conceive again in early April.

Reply
Allie
7/27/2011 04:56:33 pm

You know, the hole in front of the ear looks deep and about the size of a dime. That makes me wonder where that hole goes and how deep. I remind myself, though, that the picture is way blown up and has lots of distortion. So maybe it is just a few millimeters across and deep and just a variation and is throwing us off because it appears so big. But if it IS a big hole that goes deep into the face, well, I have just not seen that, nor have I ever seen an ENT doctor repair one in the OR.

Reply
Allie
7/27/2011 05:56:20 pm

Ottoline, dueling pictures. It is exactly the fact that they do conflict that requires a leap of faith to accept your premise. I don't see the MSM taking that leap of faith until we have a credible narrative. We have a baby. He got here somehow. How? I don't believe it is enough to say how he DIDN'T get here. How DID he get here?

If I am not mistaken, and please let me know if I am unaware, Frank Bailey went on MS TV shows and I don't think a single interviewer asked him if Sarah actually delivered Trig. Was his book a whitewash on that point?

I do agree that the photographic evidence between March 5 and April 17, 2008 is the strongest evidence we have so far of a pregnancy hoax. Lidia17's videos are devastating. Very compelling. What would happen if they were shown on TV? I don't know, except they would spark questions for which we don't yet have the answers. Boom, there goes our balloon, our credibility.

I very much like your idea about exposing her enablers. That may be the next avenue for us to flesh out more thoroughly. Laura got stonewalled by the ADN. McAllister went ballistic with Brad. Andrea Gusty was no help. Now, thanks to Laura and Brad, their stonewalling and denials are on record. Let's put our heads together and make a list of who we want to get statements from on the record. I would like a description of the atmosphere in the Perinatal Unit at Mat-Su on April 18, 2008, beyond what Frank Bailey and KTUU have said thus far.

What else and who else?

Reply
jeff
7/27/2011 10:44:17 pm


Good Morning, Laura,

Not fair! I just did my Danny Thomas coffee-spewing act after reading your sarc comment about Sarah and Toddie strategizing. Now I have to roll up my sleeves after I take my jacket off at the office. I just sprayed my left cuff. You so funnee!

jeff
-----------------------------------

@Mistah Charley :

You are so much better at being civil with the C4P crowd than I can manage to be for long periods of time. They end up going back and deleting all my comments after they realize that I'm snarking on 'em. Bless their hearts. haha
J

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/28/2011 12:16:48 am

PHO, welcome and I hope you join us more often. It's always refreshing to hear new perspective from a new voice.

This story is larger than life, stranger than Dallas (the only one I ever watched). One thing that I like, that doesn't bother me, is that we don't all agree on what is important or which path is the correct one to follow. By that I mean: prove who is the mother; prove only that she faked it; r/o certain fathers, etc. I'm not sure there is a linear element to any one of these avenues. All I do know is that as I said above, every single strange element, were it not part of this story would do two things: r/o something and make the path clearer, or not have any impact at all because there's a bucket of strangeness right behind it.

I also know that Allie meant the Christmas photo was taken in September. I think we all "know" that and so it was my fault as editor for not making clear that Allie knew it as well.

Funny, I have a photo of me at 4 months pregnant in a green sweater. I wonder if I can find it. Have to look.

Reply
lilly lily
7/28/2011 12:53:49 am

I have Palin fatigue. I think she is burnt toast beyond salvage by the Republicans. A huge liability.

We can speculate till the cows come home, but unless the press cover it (and they won't) it will go no where at all.

As far as I am concerned, the contrast between the March 14 flat abs, and the pickle barrel and linebacker shoulders of the Gusty photo are enough to prove Trig wasn't in her womb at that time.

Whose biological child he is we can't prove. Why spin my wheels.

It is enough that she is now unelectable. If she becomes the Republican nominee the Republican party is toast along with her.

Palin might become a third party candidate with Fundis and tea baggers help, and then the Republicans will dump the unassailable and definative proof out into the open.

They can always say they just got the proof recently, in spite of suspicions they couldn't say anything without documentation. Or they will leak it to one of the anti-Palin bloggers, say Laura Novak?

And THEY have the proof.

Reply
Melly
7/28/2011 04:01:55 am

I think it's been mentioned, but Audrey at Palin's Deceptions did document the green-sweater picture as 2006. It's the pic that started it all, that Kos ran right before the convention and then scrubbed from his site when the Gusty pic of big-bellied Sarah appeared. I personally would hate to see it start making the rounds again as a 2007 picture.

These days, the minute I hear theories involving photoshopping surrounding babygate, I stop reading. The more they are raised, the more fodder people have to say the photos we rely on are photoshopped--think Julia O'Malley, eg. Yeah, we know they are only lightened, which isn't even really needed for some of them. But the accusations still become easier when we're seeing conspiracy and photo manipulation everywhere else.

We have all the facts and theories in order, so until the she-monster rises up and enters the 2012 race, I think we should sit quietly and be ready to pounce.

Reply
jk
7/28/2011 05:02:12 am

Allie, Bailey supports the party line in his book: he visited the hospital after Trig was (supposedly) born, saw Bristol there asleep, wearing jeans that made it clear that she had not just given birth. That's about as much as he has to say on babygate. He doesn't consider the possibility that Trig was born earlier. Another interesting tidbit from the book, though, is that he talks about a phone call from Palin in mid-August, 2008, when she was so distraught that she could barely speak, telling him that Bristol was pregnant. He describes the events in context so I don't believe he is mixing up the dates. But mid-August flatly contradicts what both Bristol and Levi have said on the record: that they told Palin about the pregnancy. I've posted this before on other blogs & it's never gotten traction, but to me it begs explanation. The simplest explanation is presumably that Bristol & Levi agreed to lie as part of the babygate hoax -- if Bristol knew she was pregnant by the beginning of May she can't have given birth in mid-April. But if Palin really didn't know until mid-August, then Bristol was 5 months along for what was likely her 2nd pregnancy before her parents knew -- and is this credible?

Reply
nenagh
7/28/2011 05:03:28 am

Regarding becoming pregnant while on BC pills.. it is relatively easy to do, if the BC pills are not taken regularly. There are different types of BC pills.. some are low dose.. one has to be very compliant with the directions on the BC pills.

Also, some antibiotics interfere with the pill.. and one is told to watch for breakthrough bleeding...and/or use another form of birth control to ensure that one doesn't become pregnant.

Bristol told Dr Drew that she missed was it 3 or 4 tablets and he visibly reacted.. saying you can become pregnant after missing 1 tablet. As a professional, he knows that women taking BC pills must be responsible enough to take the pills as directed...

I wonder if Bristol missed a number of BC pills over months and maybe years, and grew rather complacent about the necessity of regularly taking the BC pills..so she owned up to just missing a few tablets when people & the professionals made such a big thing about it.

I also believe that Bristol during some stages in her life, wanted to get pregnant to get away from her home situation because she believed that Levi would have to marry her if she was pregnant.. Maybe not a conscious wish.. but there, none-the-less...because basically Levi had none of the theatrics and emotional roller-coaster diva performances of Sarah, when at home.

Bristol realized on some level that her grandfather married her grandmother.. & her father married her mother.. when each became pregnant prior to marriage...

[I'm not chastising Bristol for wanting to get pregnant before marriage.. but I wonder if Bristol saw it as an escape hatch from a super critical mother.]

Also.... I see significant distortions in 'Ruffles' ear.. distortions involving the inner portion of the ear. It makes me wonder, if that baby wasn't at all a Down's baby... I am not speaking about the 'ruffles' around the ear, but about the actual configuration of what is within the ruffled area.
It is such a peculiar ear..

Yes there may be distortions of the camera... but it looks to me as if there has been some exudate from the open portions of the ear onto the blanket/ warm sheet wrapping the baby.

So, is there another explanation for the fragility of Ruffles... and the apparent distortions of his little ear?

I am not saying that there was a genetic problem with Ruffles... but still wonder if there were prenatal influences that could have affected the baby... that were influences that were incurred when a teenager was partying.. and did not know she was pregnant?




When I look at the Heath's family home.. so isolated..

Reply
Allie
7/28/2011 05:25:44 am

All good points and thank you PHO for your input and perspective. Very interesting to me. I am just curious about one factoid. Do you think Trig was born on 4/18 or some other date?

Recently, I have been immersed in writing a couple of posts here thanks to Laura's generosity, so I am still actively engaged in the details. While I don't have to know every detail, I do want to solve the mystery. The OB part of my mind is curious.

Speaking for myself, I know that I can't escape the truth that if the pregnancy is a hoax, then it is by definition a conspiracy because somebody did and Sarah and the birth mother know it. Boom, conspiracy.

Reply
Ferry Fey
7/28/2011 05:33:17 am

Laura, I keep thinking about something you said a few weeks ago, about how you, and Joe, and Andrew can't go beyond being Trignostic with the evidence we have now. As professionals, you just can't make that leap, and I can respect that.

But it seems to me that that would be a perfectly proper position _if_, and only if, we had the normal sort of evidence that Sarah's pregnancy was what she said it was, and Trig was who she said he was. If we had that, there might have been rumors, but you'd have to be pretty damned dogged and obsessive to look for reasons to show there was something fishy.

With no verifiable, legally and evidentially sound proof that Sarah gave birth to Trig, and a serious push-back to make sure none of that info is revealed, being willing to consider the rest of the Trig info has a whole different weight to it.

Reply
Lidia17
7/28/2011 07:07:16 am

@PalinHypocrisyOverload, the anonymized photos were proferred by "Palin's Peyton Place": http://www.palinpeytonplace.com/ob-gyn-shocked.html

@Allie, thanks for your compliments. I only made a more synthetic version of what Audrey and Patrick and other Palin researchers had already published. However, not having "all the answers" does not diminish our credibility in stating that Sarah Palin Did Not Give Birth to Tri-G. As in a court of law, we would not have to prove who DID, only that Sarah DID NOT. Yes, it would be nice if we could wrap it up and put a bow on it, but that may not be possible (despite that, we should not give up trying).

Reply
Lidia17
7/28/2011 07:25:06 am

@Melly, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about photoshopping.

Having been a professional graphic designer and art director with my own studio for over ten years, I would bet anybody $10,000 that none of the Mercede Johnston "Triggy-Bear" series of photos have been altered, except for the patently silly footprints which are a kind of "scrapbooking" fetish.

Lying about dates and times, however, is much more possible.

People who rashly invoke Photoshop at the drop of a hat do not even realize what sort of effort is involved to come close to a simulacrum of reality. The fact is that such work, if it is even to flirt with success, requires—oftentimes—much more than even a very well-equipped and expen$ive $tudio is able or willing to put into the project.

Just look at the site "Photoshop Disasters"

http://www.psdisasters.com/

to see what trained people given thousands of dollars per day can come up with. Almost all photoshopping is obvious. To suggest that an untrained teen can do better than folks on Madison Avenue is more than just a stretch.

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/28/2011 07:49:09 am

Ferry Fey, I appreciate your question. And it reminds me to write an entire post on it. Which I think I'll do now. It goes to the idea of what is evidence. Let me put my thoughts together and come up with an essay. Then hopefully we can discuss from there. I'm glad you asked the question. Thanks.

Reply
rubbernecking
7/28/2011 09:58:23 am

When in doubt about the date/source of a photo, I think you should simply post the photo and ask your readers for information about it.

####################################### 
Green Sweater Photo:

Here are some sources that date this photo as October 2006:

***Palin Deceptions dated the green sweater photo to fall 2006. http://palindeception.blogspot.com/2009/02/once-and-for-all.html

***ADN: The green sweater photo is available with a photo credit and caption in the Palin bio photo stream on ADN. It is picture 30 in this collection:
http://www.adn.com/2008/08/29/v-gallery/509850/sarah-palin-biography.html#id=509987&view=large_view

Note the credit says "LESTER/Anchorage Daily News" and the caption says it was taken in Wasilla in 2006.

The next photo in the same ADN stream shows Sarah and Todd outside their Wasilla home. Sarah is wearing the same clothes and there are bare trees in the background. Todd is wearing a red campaign pin. The credit says "MARC LESTER/Anchorage Daily News" and the caption says it was taken
in October 2006 in Wasilla.

In Oct 2006, ADN published a two-part background piece about Palin's gubernatorial run.

Part 1 ran on 10/23/06 http://www.adn.com/2006/10/23/510447/part-1-fresh-face-launched-carries.html
Part 2 ran on 10/24/06 http://www.adn.com/2006/10/24/217384/part-2-rebel-status-has-fueled.html

For those who feel additional proof is still needed, the ADN is available on microfilm at Alaska public libraries. It should be easy for someone in AK to get the microfilm for 10/23/06 and see what photos ran in the print edition.

########################################

BTW, Audrey also made efforts to verify the mono rumor but I don't think she was able to confirm it: http://www.palindeception.com/blog/2008/12/for-sake-of-accuracy.html

Reply
TF
7/28/2011 12:46:34 pm

@ rubbernecking - I agree that the green sweater picture was taken in 2006 and I think (in addition to everything you said) that Willow's appearance supoorts the 2006 date. Here is a a picture of the three Palin girls in Dec. 2006 (according to the caption).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29590065@N08/3885446093/
Willow looks much the same and much thinner than she did later in 2007 and 2008.

Reply
comeonpeople
7/28/2011 10:20:27 pm

@Nenagh,
The hole in front of the er, if it is a sinus tract, could have exudate coming from it. Good pick up, I had not noticed before. An open sinus tract can be surgically corrected. The rest of the ear, NOT.

Reply
rubbernecking
7/28/2011 11:29:41 pm

@Allie, you said about green sweater photo, "If it was definitely taken in Oct. '06, it doesn't change anything, but I am not ready to go down the path of THREE back-to-back pregnancies."

Isn't another possible conclusion that the photos show that Bristol tends to gain/show weight in her belly first?

I think posts that introduce too many variables at once are problematic. I think there are benefits to dedicating a post to collecting and validating information on a single variable at a time. For example, here are ideas for two separate posts:

Post 1:
- 2008 Church Video: Some people believe this video shows Bristol attending church a few days before giving birth. Post a link to the video and ask your readers to analyze what is known/unknown about the video. e.g., Who is the woman with wavy hair wearing the yellow jacket? How do you distinguish Willow from Bristol in this video?

Post 2:
- Bristol timeline post: Start consolidating info about Bristol's whereabouts in a single post and identify links/sources. Crowd-source the work! Ask your readers to submit comments in a format that a guest blogger can easily copy/paste to build a working a timeline, e.g.

<Year> <Month> - <Description>
<supporting sources>

e.g.,
2008 Jan - Bristol at West Anchorage HS
sources:
1. PD Interview with AK source: http://www.palindeception.com/blog/2008/11/on-record-from-misty-some-bristol.html
2. Crivella email from school principal:
http://www.crivellawest.net/palin2011/pdf/11837.pdf
3. Trailblazer (the unauthorized Bio by People Mag writer Lorenzo Benet): http://books.google.com/books?id=q_iIMb-jOGkC&lpg=PP1&dq=lorenzo%20benet&pg=PT169#v=onepage&q=%22Anchorage%20to%20live%20with%20her%20aunt%22&f=false

2008 Mar - Bristol not in school?
1. PD Interview with AK source says Bristol stops attending Anchorage HS between late Feb and mid March because "she finished early" by taking "distance learning": http://www.palindeception.com/blog/2008/11/on-record-from-misty-some-bristol.html
2. Summer School plans. Palin tells staff in Mar 08 that Bristol will be attending summer school. http://www.crivellawest.net/palin2011/pdf/13900.pdf

The timeline post is something you can easily out-source to a guest blogger. The guest blogger would agree to review links submitted by other commenters and provide you updated versions of the timeline to post.

Reply
Dis Gusted
7/29/2011 01:10:03 am

the photos of Levi holding the two babies says a great deal. He is blond with long hair in the green shirt photo and he is much older in the second baby photo.

I've always thought there were multiple babies. The rumors of Bristol's pregnancy started the summer of 2007 and they make sense.

Reply
Dis Gusted
7/29/2011 01:13:21 am

also, the first time I saw the court custody papers - Tripp's birthdate was listed was 12/07. There was a statement that it was a typo. I'm thinkin' the 2008 date is a typo. Tripp is a year older than we were led to believe.

Reply
rubbernecking
7/29/2011 02:08:37 am

@Dis Gusted, how did you verify your memory is accurate?

Who issued the statement about a typo in the custody docs? When was the correction issued? Which blogs or news sites discussed the typo statement?

Please provide the links/sources.

Reply
emrysa
7/29/2011 05:14:24 am

@ everspring:

I have considered the twin possibility, too. you are correct that premature twins would be very, very small. the baby that levi is holding in the pic with the hospital bracelet is tiny. tiny. tripp was supposed to be 7 lbs 7 ounces? there is no way that baby weighs that much. furthermore, in the picture of piper wearing the striped shirt holding a baby - that baby is also very tiny, can't see it being 6 lbs 2 ozs or 7 lbs 7 ozs. it's all very strange. one of the things that bothers me about the twins story though is the 3 generations of johnstons pic - if trig & tripp are twins, that would mean that the johnstons do know everything. I do think that if the twins theory is accurate, then they would have been born earlier than march.

another interesting thing to me is the size of tripp in the may 6 2009 matt lauer video - it's hard for me to believe that baby is only 4 months old. yes, he also doesn't look like he's over a year old, but if he was born as a tiny twin - possibly with complications - it is possible.

all I can really say with any certainty is that the quitter did not birth a baby on april 18, 2008.

Reply
MicMac
7/29/2011 11:26:08 pm

Just to keep the video record, also too, up front and center along with the photographic record. The two videos - one shot in late Feb 2008 "Hiking in Juneau" and the Elan Frank videos - to me are even more compelling than the photographic record, or at least support the photos unconditionally up to the point of the Gusty Big Belly picture. They give the lie to the Big Belly picture as videos, unlike photos, cannot be photoshopped.

No, I do not think the photos were photoshopped, but this has been the lame dismissal on the part of the MSM regarding the flat belly pictures.

No way, no how, can a woman as flat bellied as Sarah was in the late Feb "Hiking in Juneau" (and you see her from all sides in this video) be as big bellied as she was in the Gusty photo a handful of weeks later. Or give birth to even a preemie in mid-April.

Reply
Lidia17
7/30/2011 04:39:00 pm

@micmac, at Floyd Orr's indirect suggestion, I edited down that AlaskaHDTV episode to a more manageable length. It's on my YT channel, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIcb8MGYDn8

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Laura Novak

    Reporter, Author, Blogger, and Mother...

    Picture

    RSS Feed


    My novel is now on Amazon Kindle!!
    Picture


    Blogs I Read

    Getty Iris
    Cloisters Garden
    Daily Dish
    AlterNet
    Immoral Minority
    Hullabaloo
    Phantomimic
    Jotting Down a Life
    Lynnrockets
    Oakland Local
    Passive Voice
    LitBrit
    Onward
    Joe McGinniss
    Barbara Alfaro
    Suzanne Rosenwasser


    Categories

    All
    Brushes With Greatness
    Dance Number
    Education
    Friday Feature
    Girls On The Bus
    Good Men Project
    Just Sayin
    My Favorite Movie
    Neonatologist
    Private Parts
    Quick Take Tuesday
    Sarah Palin
    Scharlott Stuff
    Scribd
    Shrink Wrap Supreme
    Tao Te Wednesday
    True Confessions
    Vox Populi
    Writing/Publishing

    Picture
    View my profile on LinkedIn
    Picture

    Archives

    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010

Proudly powered by Weebly
Photos used under Creative Commons from acidpix, sicamp, Clearly Ambiguous, breahn, hoill, William Arthur Fine Stationery, southerntabitha, *Vintage Fairytale*, NeoGaboX, Dana Moos, ButterflyOrb, ruurmo, MCS@flickr, h.koppdelaney, Andrew 94, MarkWallace, fdecomite, Wonderlane, christophercarfi, dreamsjung, the superash, euphro, melloveschallah, Rhett Sutphin, I Don't Know, Maybe., Harold Laudeus, h.koppdelaney, jennaddenda, Harrissa Sunshine, Wesley Fryer, fidalgo_dennis, bark, [cipher], fdecomite, Marcos Kontze, legends2k, optick, pjohnkeane, Kabacchi, Pink Sherbet Photography, h.koppdelaney, alexbrn, Elsie esq., Rafael Acorsi, naitokz, tiffa130, otisarchives4, Sheloya Mystical and Agrimas Gothic, allygirl520, tnarik, Daquella manera, peyri, Patrick Hoesly, Anderson Mancini, Abode of Chaos, joewcampbell, keepitsurreal, Jonas N, David Boyle, Gideon Burton, evmaiden, Mike Willis, ankakay, LadyDragonflyCC -Busy Wedding Week for BF Amy!, Cast a Line, aeneastudio, Lord Jim, hisperati, dbzoomer, Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com, thegardenbuzz, kamshots, AleBonvini, smadden, CarbonNYC