Lit Brit A Year Later

7/3/2011

Thanks to commenters who push for answers on the March 14th photo, and to the reader who provided a link that I thought everyone should visit.

In this blog post, Lit Brit, who has always been one of the finest writers on the Palin-palooza, penned this post with multiple versions of the black suit/pink scarf photo. It is the best amalgam of lightened photos I've seen in one place - especially that last, lightened photo. Curiously, Lit Brit wrote this post nearly one year ago. What does that tell us about where we are? Have we furthered the story?

So thank you, NSG, for providing the link. And to those who have already seen it through the link from the previous post, apologies. It's really worth flagging for those who haven't. And Allie,RN, made some trenchant remarks about the suit. Things I hadn't thought of. Perhaps she can repeat them here for new readers.

82 Comments

litbrit link

7/3/2011 03:35:49 am

Morning, Laura, and thanks for the kind words!

I share your disbelief that an entire year has flown by since I wrote that post, and others before it. I really held out hope that the incredible reader-submitted photograph forensics would render the hoax stunningly obvious, would make it impossible for anyone to remain in a state of denial--I mean, the readers who sent me them were all men who'd followed Sully's link, and who'd previously thought Babygate was a silly conspiracy. And then.

So if *they* could be convinced--and I have to tell you, everyone I showed those photos to, including my husband, had the same "Holy SH*T!" response, followed by a "why did the media let her get away with such blatant, insulting lies?" question--one is left to conclude that our media did in fact know it was a big hoax but deliberately spiked the story, avoided pursuing anything that might advance the story, and even mocked and derided anyone who *did* pursue the story.

This conclusion--that there was deliberate silencing--is supported by Christopher Hitchens' statement that numerous people had confided to him that Trig was not Palin's biological child.

And the feminist blogosphere did themselves no favor when they all lined up behind the "it's not nice to question women's choices or police their bodies" edict. What rubbish--I am a feminist. I don't care that Palin was a woman; I care that she lied about something this huge, and I care that the lapdog press enabled it all. That was why I shot back with the post comparing Palin's lie-riddled birth story with that of a male politician, one who'd made up a heroic tale about combat. As we have seen again and again, if a male politician lies about his military service so as to build his political bona fides, and the story has as much as a *whiff* of not-quite-right about it, the media will pounce on it and force the candidate to set the record straight; often, this will happen within days. Called to the mat.

Now, of course, we face the annoying question of "Well, does it really matter any more?"

I'd argue that, Hell yes, it matters. The story now is the enormous failure of our press in allowing this unbalanced, untruthful, and deeply unqualified person to be next in line to the presidency behind a 72-year-old cancer survivor (to quote John Cleese). If the press is not held accountable, they will do the same thing again. Indeed, they're busy doing it right now, in cities across the country.

For me, Exhibit A (when making the case that the media most certainly do not serve the function of informing and thus protecting the public) would be our own governor in Florida, Rick Scott. This was a man with serious criminal activity in his past, with a record-breaking fine for his role in Medicare scams, and the state press seemed almost apologetic if they ever did mention same, and now that he's the governor, you'd be hard-pressed to find any of them mentioning it at all--that's left to the bloggers, as usual.

Laura Novak link

7/3/2011 03:52:56 am

Lit Brit, you articulate so well what some of us fail to do. How is it you Brits-by-birth are so much better at this than us?

I was just talking to someone about another issue entirely and she said that people just don't care anymore. And with all that we've seen happen to the media (and business is not good) there are clearly ulterior motives to not rocking any boat.

So, if people think they know the answer to this, then provide the name, and the photo, and the proof. There is a pool of brilliant writers out there who comment on this blog and all the others who are doing what the MSM is too afraid to do.

Keep up all your good work, LitBrit and thanks for allowing me to share this again.

Jeanette

7/3/2011 04:26:05 am

Thanks Lit Brit for a comparison that has to be as clear as a bell. I am not sure how far we have come but Laura's blog has gotten a lot of folks looking at and talking about the pictures again and that is a good thing. Maybe looking at these pictures in relation to the emails even though they are heavily redacted will lead to new clues.

I also think having q & a about the pictures with people knowledgeable about an issue helps a great deal in making the case as well.

Persephone

7/3/2011 04:38:04 am

I, too, thought that LitBrit's post was going to be the thing that blew this wide open. And now, here we are a year later, with me hoping that Laura's blog will do the same. I do feel like we're getting closer, if only because more and more people seem to understand what a horrific hoax was foisted upon Alaska and then the nation.

And for those who ask why it matters at this stage in the game, I answer that there are thousands upon thousands of people who still love Sarah Palin and use her "I chose life" meme to *prove* that she is an upstanding Christian and, ergo, candidate for President.

Take that away from her, and you're left with a few thousand who would still support her because they think she was doing something honorable. The rest would be horrified that she lied (and lied and lied and lied) and that would be the end of it.

Sigh...one can only hope.

Banyan

7/3/2011 04:41:07 am

@LitBrit and Laura

Thank you!

I think the March 14th picture is worth (more than) a thousand words and provides conclusive evidence of the Palin Pregnancy Hoax.

But, sad to say, I have heard over and over, from the doubters I've showed the picture to:
"It's just one picture." or "Pictures can be deceiving/altered." or "if this were true, someone in the media would have written about it by now." etc.,etc.

Most of us on the blog think the Hoax is obvious. Many of the rest are trolls.

But most of the public (including close members of my own family) are simply not quite ready to accept the implications of the Hoax.

That doesn't mean we should shut up and go away. I think the only way to go is to forge ahead. Although, the more I look into this matter (and my own theories about what went down and why), the more I understand the fear of many to get near this toxic and potentially dangerous topic.

I am particularly saddened, however, by people who call themselves feminists who think this has to do with "women's choices" and is, therefore, untouchable. I no longer support the organization NOW which has been been infiltrated by such Palin-Bachmann style "feminists."

And I recall the early 2008 journalist blog discussions -- leaked by the odious Tucker Carlson -- by journalists (some of whom I personally know) who advised each other to stay away from the Palin pregnancy hoax issue lest it backfire on Obama's possible election, or because it was a feminist personal privacy issue.

I hope some of these journalists will step forward now -- but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Ottoline

7/3/2011 04:47:17 am

Oh, geez, litbrit, it's good to read your clear words again. I have missed you!

The "deliberate silencing" is also supported by the Paxton/McCain/Iseman news blackout.

Yes, the obstacles we face are:
1. "It doesn't matter," which is a variation of the spiral of silence IMO.
2. "Leave the children out of it" or "don't question pregnancy/sexuality," both bogus objections because it's about the lie and the enabling of it, not those other issues.
3. The MSM blackout on this topic, which seems ever more obvious. And lots of people, papers, groups have a lot to lose if the blackout gets lifted, so . . . .
4. The reluctance of informed observers to go from Trignostic to saying publicly "Palin was not pregnant with Trig."

So. Yes. It's been a year. And all along we have been thinking "Iceberg in 10 minutes!" and then nothing -- nothing that has traction, anyway. Perhaps it will never be revealed. That would sure satisfy a lot of people.

But I am SO GLAD to see you back. I hope you will stay. You have sooooooo much to add.

Ottoline

7/3/2011 04:52:48 am

Laura -- It would be fine with me if you deleted posts containing no info but using gratuitous vulgar language. Or leave them in. It really doesn't matter, just adds clutter.

Molly

7/3/2011 05:12:44 am

I don't think we should despair yet. I believe Joe McGinniss probably has some devastating information about Palin (not pregnancy related) and that when his book is published in September, the floodgates will open.

Already great progress has been made here in the last few days regarding McCain and the possibility of blackmail. I know the media is a pain in the a**, but Palin's star is fading fast. Soon the media might realise that to get the clicks on a Palin story, they are going to have to report the facts.

A girl can always hope.....
Great to see you back litbrit!

lftismygame

7/3/2011 05:14:01 am

Laura,
I agree with Ottoline. One reason I check this blog first is the thoughtful and well written comments.

KatieAnnieOakley

7/3/2011 05:29:47 am

Laura, if this is so much more than just Palin faking Trig's birth, many more people are going to be willing to stop it from ever coming to the MSM. Powerful people.

Imagine if Evangelical leaders, Washington lobbyists and John McCain himself are involved? These are heavy-hitters that don't like to lose. People get hurt, and worse with the type of cover-up and the power of the sort of people we're talking about.

Mysterious house fires, plane crashes and the complete silence of almost every resident of the Mat-Su valley is NOT outside the realm of reality with the level of this sort of cover-up, if true.

Then again, Palin has the backing of the AIP; that's enough intimidation for most people.

curiouser

7/3/2011 05:51:38 am

This post by litbrit (and her earlier post that prompted it) and her post on the outrageous sexism of not questioning Palin's birth story are all gems. The particular brilliance of the photo lightening post is that it allows the reader to discover Palin's shockingly flat belly.

Jumping to Allie's comment on the last post:
"Why isn't that photograph the end of the story? The short answer is because we can't clearly see her midriff area."

Even if we could see her midriff (which is visible in the March 26 photo), there's still the question of willingness to emphatically state that it's 100% impossible for Sarah to be pregnant as claimed. As I understand it, neither Brad nor Laura has taken that position. Is there any biological/physiological explanation for Sarah's appearance on Mar. 14, 26, and then on April 13 that supports a possible pregnancy or do the photos show a biological impossibility? Could a medical expert elevate these photos to the status of final, ultimate evidence of a hoax or is an 'apparently unusual pregnancy progression' one more in the series of improbable events that make up Sarah's fantasy tale?

Jeanette

7/3/2011 06:02:03 am

Some now feel that because Sarah's star seems to be falling this story doesn't matter anymore. I think it does matter even if she does not run in 2012 for two reasons. Like Nixon, Sarah can always come back and five, ten years from now the hoax will be even harder to prove,

Also Sarah set a new tone for acceptable public discourse and we are still living with that. If she is discredited, maybe that tone of hate will be as well.

Ottoline

7/3/2011 06:02:14 am

Of course, as KatieAnneOakley says, it's the powerful people who are a big problem. It's like when Woodward and Bernstein phoned Atty General John Mitchell to tell him that they were publishing a certain bit of info, Mitchell exploded "It's not true! And you can tell Katie [Katherine Graham, editor/owner of the WashPo at that time] that if she publishes it, she'll get her tit caught in a wringer." KG was consulted and they published it anyway, because KG was courageous, and that was the published beginning of Watergate.

(Note to "the other guy," above: this is an example of NONgratuitous vulgar language, because it is a direct quote.)

curiouser

7/3/2011 06:07:01 am

Rephrasing my previous comment:

I believe the March 14 photo proves Sarah wasn't pregnant but I was raised by a narcissist mother and, to this day, have difficulty trusting myself. Couldn't I be wrong? What if there's something in the photo that I don't see? What if there's a biological explanation that I can't even imagine?

Ottoline

7/3/2011 06:11:13 am

Curiouser, I agree 100%. Neither Brad, nor Laura, nor Allie, nor McGinniss (for his different reason, perhaps), nor Christopher Hitchens, nor Andrew Sullivan, nor Dunn (among others) are willing to step beyond the Trignostic safety zone. Why?

Floyd M. Orr link

7/3/2011 06:20:02 am

Ottoline, I cannot resist:

Step out of the Trignostic Zone into the Paradigm Shift.

Ottoline

7/3/2011 06:25:28 am

Curiouser, re "rephrasing your statement" doubts: That's a good reason right there to declare "Palin wasn't pregnant with Trig." I mean that then if we are wrong, someone will tell us! I personally would welcome being told I am wrong, IF I am. Because for most of us long-time bloggers, it's not about whether we personally are right or wrong, but about etablishing the truth.

And it would be SO EASY for someone who cares to prove we are wrong. IF we were. IF there were a credible explanation for the Mar 14 photo.

Is there?

Laura Novak link

7/3/2011 06:26:50 am

I thought Allie was pretty clear. And Brad. But for the rest of us I can only say this: that proof to a journalist is something else, something concrete, and by that I mean a document, a statement and indisputable fact.

I know, I know! Most people say this all adds up to hard facts. What it really adds up to is a newspaper doing a story on WHY the hoax idea won't go away. That is a really valid assignment.

The ADN did start to do that story. Then said they had to stop b/c she wouldn't cooperate. They tell me it's b/c they know for a fact that SP had the baby. Then why stop the story? How can you know this if she didn't cooperate? Those two don't add up. And the spiral continues.

The story of all of this evidence and the theories is waiting to be done. But the lesson from the ADN is that Palin won't cooperate and no "document" proves it 100%.

Add to that the other complexities everyone has addressed: gooey female stuff, special needs child, the people in power backing her.

Beyond a reasonable doubt? Sure. For a fact, not yet.

That is the journalist in me. And the only explanation I can give you.

KatieAnnieOakley

7/3/2011 06:32:46 am

The ONLY document that can end the discussion is a BIRTH CERTIFICATE for Trig PAXSON Van Palin dated April 18, 2008.

And It. Doesn't Exist.

molly malone

7/3/2011 06:35:23 am

@ curiouser,

Yes, you are correct, Litbrit's last lightened photo proves there is no there there. Check the shadow cast by the left half of Palin's jacket--it falls in a straight line. But even more significant--that shadow is the same width from top to bottom and all points in between. Had there been any kind of a bump there, the shadow would have narrowed at that contact point.

An embarrassing aside: since my proportions are about the same as Palin's, I decided to check this out before I mentioned it. Unfortunately, my neighbor stopped by just then and said, "It's 80 degrees. Why are you wearing a jacket with a pillow stuffed under your shirt?"

curiouser

7/3/2011 07:03:11 am

molly - Funny story! I've done some in-home testing too but I would've pretended not to hear the knock on the door.

I'm thrilled that we have Trignostic journalists. I don't expect a journalist...or anyone, including myself...to take a position of 100% certainty based on the current evidence. I do expect the national media to report the valid questions raised by existing evidence and directly ask Sarah to prove her claims.

curiouser

7/3/2011 07:17:31 am

Otto - Well said about wanting the truth. When I bring up the March 14 photo, I don't care whether the medical opinion proves the pregnancy impossible or possible. I don't have an agenda other than full, truthful reporting. I know a woman who insists a fetus can be in a 'sunrise' position where the pregnancy won't show until the fetus changes position. I suspect, if there is such a thing, that the position change would have to occur before 30 weeks. Waaaa! I just want to get the wondering out of my head!

Leona

7/3/2011 07:31:02 am

Conspiracy Theory #539:
Here’s food for thought:
Glenn Beck was born in Everett, WA on February 10, 1964 and Sarah Palin was born in Sandpoint, ID on February 11, 1964. Coincidence????? I think not.
There was a pregnant woman in Everett, Washington, way back in February, 1964. After watching the American premiere of the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show, her water broke.
She did not panic. Instead she labored for a few days, and then, on February 10, out came a blond baby boy. She handed him off to the nurses, jumped in her car and headed east because she really wanted to meet the Beatles in person before they flew back to Merry Olde England.
She got to Sandpoint, Idaho, about 350 miles east of Everett, when her water broke again. “What the hell?” she thought to herself, stopped at a local diner, and told the waitress that she needed some help.
The waitress delivered a baby girl right there in the diner, on February 11, and the woman asked her to hang onto the baby.
She jumped back into her car and sped off towards New York City. Alas, the Beatles had long since left the Big Apple. She decided to stay in New York, and the story goes that she still lives there, somewhere between 215th Street and Battery.
As for the babies, well, the blond boy was adopted by a nurse named Beck, and the dark haired girl was adopted by the waitress, whose name was Heath.

p.s. I know it is not April Fool's Day, but I thought readers might enjoy a laugh anyway. B-)

Mhurka

7/3/2011 07:57:34 am

All of this vaguely reminds me of the old Anna Anderson controversy involving a woman who claimed to be the only surviving child of czar Nicholas and heiress to the Romonov line. The controversy raged on for years and years to the point where a movie was made about it starring Ingrid Bergman. Were it not for relatively recent DNA testing (which proved that she was an imposter)the mystery would have remained unresolved to this day.
Unless somebody in the know comes forward we might have to wait for actual hard scientific testing and or documentation to solve the Trig mystery. Ugh.

Laura Novak link

7/3/2011 08:23:44 am

When I first read Demer's comments, I assumed this was a tough reporter pressing for answers to an odd story.

When I heard the tape, it was a whole different ball game. I heard a very tenuous reporter embarrassed and almost afraid to ask the question. She practically apologizes in her tone and tenor. She heard it from the dad, sure. But she's afraid to ask Sarah with any sense of "was he kidding?" and that's why I have no faith that this reporter or anyone else in that newspaper got any story straight or asked or pressed for any information.

I hear "I'm so sorry to be asking you this question" all over her voice. I was not impressed.

Ottoline

7/3/2011 08:28:51 am

Laura: I'm trying to understand the higher journalistic standards you cite.

For a case of insurance fraud (man claims his legs are paralyzed but they are not), we have lots of testimony and photos of this man struggling along in his wheelchair for the past 6 mo, and then we have ONE photo of him jogging at the 3-mo point: the date, time, location, positive ID of the man, authenticity of the photo is as indisputable as they are for the Mar 14 Palin photo.

Do you call this proof or not? I say it's proof (a "document"), unless someone can debunk the photo or offer another credible explanation of it.

?

Molly

7/3/2011 08:36:42 am

Apart from the media, the one thing that has shocked me in this whole debacle is the willingness of the Palins to go after Levi. Palin looked foolish taking on a teenager.

We all know Palin is vengeful, but the degree to which she went after Levi was shocking. He knows the truth and the Palins want to discredit him. Bristol's book was the latest attempt at character assassination.

The Palins and the Johnstons know the story. Mercedes has contradicted herself on more than one occasion. They have a hard time keeping their stories straight. I do understand that she might be under enormous pressure.

Lidia17

7/3/2011 08:45:16 am

Ottoline, I agree. To me the photo is just as valid as a "document", and much more valid than a "statement".

We've heard hundreds of thousands of statements about the Tri-G pregnancy, most of them lies.

cuzIsaidso

7/3/2011 08:59:03 am

I thought Audrey, Bree, Regina, Sully, Gryphen, Litbrit, Laura, and Brad all, in turn, asked reasonable and relevant questions, provided evidence, photos, expert opinions and intelligent, thoughtful commentary that would lead to the ultimate tipping point. Certain blog commenters along the way have added personal insights and experiences to the mountain of testimony that this MUST have been a hoax.
Yet, Sarah Palin walks free. I bet she still believes she can outlast you all. And at least one little, vulnerable boy is an innocent victim and deserves better.
I wonder what it will take to bring truth to light? With so many half-truths and flat-out lies woven through every aspect, will we ever know the actual story of this hoax? I doubt Sarah herself remembers the history clearly. When it finally does blow up, I hope every single person complicit in covering the lie goes down with her-republican operatives, hospital board members, staff people, corrupt journalists, etc. And I hope it is a bitter, bitter pill for the far-right, pro-lifers to swallow. She is after all a monster of their making.
Thank you all for not giving up, for continuing to deconstruct every aspect of the lie. One of these posts is going to be "THE ONE". You will all be vindicated. Soon, I hope.
ps. the other guy-your comment was rude and offensive.

Jeanette

7/3/2011 09:00:02 am

Not even a birth certificate from Alaska would satisfy me, particularly since as I understand it, certificates can be changed in instances of adoption. For me a piece of paper can't me disbelieve what I can see with my own eyes.

Jane in NC

7/3/2011 10:07:43 am

If the only acceptable proof is DNA testing of both Sarah and Trig (which I believe is the case), then I suspect there's a long row to hoe.

She'd have to cooperate (imagine that) or be forcibly subjected to testing (for suspicion of criminal activity? Imagine THAT!) that was witnessed, notarized, whatever -- all that legal stuff. A hair from her head (could be a wig, though) and one from Trig's, plucked by the most honest person on earth wouldn't do it.

As others have said, her best bet might be to write a confession herself and make a pile of money from it. Even then, of course, it may not be the truth.

There's HIPAA (a good thing, I think, and I do wish Nurse Allie would bolster her credibility by using the correct acronym), "fundie" births and adoptions, and something that tells me it should be possible to forge a birth certificate including Dr. CBJ's (forced?) signature.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's going to be darn hard to impossible to prove with documentation that Sarah Palin is not the birth mother of Trig(s?) Palin. If Laura has some specific scenarios she'd like to outline of how this documentation might come to light and what it would look like, I'd be glad to read them.

Maybe the best to hope for is that Palin continues the hoist upon her own petard (petard = Old French for fart) and it carries her far away from any possibility of any position of any power anywhere.

Bob

7/3/2011 10:09:08 am

i agree with the concept that the drip, drip, drip will eventually break through the wall of silence.

I, for one, believe that there are mainstream journalists out there skeptical of the myths surrounding the birth of this child. i think it's one of life's ironies that the bogus claims of the so-called birther conspiracy happened at the same time, and it's made it easier to dismiss the claims of hoax around the Palin pregnancy.

I thought a couple of months ago when Brad's paper proposal garnered headlines, we'd see some breaks. I also thought when Palin foolishly accused Obama of hiding something in his birth certificate, that'd make it easier to look at her hoax. Alas, no.

I take comfort in two things:
1. Does anyone know anyone who was skeptical of Palin's stories about the birth of her fifth child at some point, and now firmly believes that Palin did birth that child? In other words, isn't this a one way street, with no turning back to believing Palin?

2. With these questions being asked in the blogosphere, maybe it will keep Palin from running for President (although in my opinion she has too much influence on public discourse anyway).

---
In my opinion, what is likely to happen, and maybe is already happening--she will lose some of her luster, and suffer a tough fall--the kind of thing that happens to most celebrities at some point as the culture turns to the next big thing.

And then everything will come out. The drip, drip, drip, finally will break down the wall.

curiouser

7/3/2011 10:20:03 am

I wonder how our illustrious media would explain the difference in appearance of Sarah and Bristol...

wearing pencil skirts

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49830475@N04/5014424920/in/photostream

at 32-weeks pregnant

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49830475@N04/5899348108/in/photostream

Laura Novak link

7/3/2011 10:26:34 am

I understand the group frustration. Really I do. I write as someone who knows what a good editor would ask for and demand.

As for typos or mis-thoughts....we all make them. Just know that I verified Allie's license, as I did for the other medical experts who have commented here.

Ottoline

7/3/2011 10:28:29 am

I do think there's a Pulitzer there for the one who ties the hoax in with Dominionists, McCain's upper-level campaign staff, fat cats of the Rupert/Koch/Paxton variety, the MSM decision-makers and their on-purpose failure, and the effort to derail Obama's initiatives via all the distractions. Lots of overlap there, of course.

Does anyone know Dan Rather well enough to ask him what's going on? In view of his debacle with CBS over Bush's service record.

Ottoline

7/3/2011 10:49:39 am

Jane in NC -- just to confirm your amusing French for "hoisted upon her own petard," (which I sincerely do hope Palin will do!) I'd like to add that ultra-chic clothes-horse Nan Kempner's favorite dessert was "pet-de-nonne, a fritter-like Escoffier creation, [which] meant "nun's fart" in French."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/nan-kempner-498348.html

Allie

7/3/2011 11:00:58 am

I'm going to change my name to Devil's Advocate for a moment. The vast majority of people are what I call powerfully ignorant. They can take the flimsiest of evidence, mix it with a little emotion, sprinkle it with something to do with sex and voila, an unshakeable opinion. Once an opinion enters the realm of conventional wisdom it takes on stone-like qualities. Remember Gary Condit? That guy was toast. Innocent toast. Chandra Levy's real killer is now in prison, but, I'll bet that I could find people that still believe that Condit had "something" to do with it.

Once an opinion is formed and contrary evidence is introduced, it is usually the case that the opinion actually gets more entrenched rather than open to new possibilities. It is incredibly frustrating for people who can weigh and consider new evidence and alter their opinion, whether it is a tweak or a complete reversal.

In our world of the Palin birth hoax our conventional wisdom is that Trig was not delivered from Sarah Palin's birth canal on April 18, 2008. Period. Outside of our world, the CW is that either he absolutely was or the who gives a crap? faction. Between our worlds is a bridge holding who we call Trignostics. The bridge is filling up. Our job is the change the conventional wisdom.

To more fully assess the scope of our assignment, here is a quick little thought experiment. For those who KNOW with certainty that Palin was not pregnant and Trig arrived out of someone else's birth canal, what evidence would it take for YOU to change YOUR mind about that?

I myself have your basic vivid imagination. Oh, yeah, I like to flatter myself that I can get some real creative thoughts going that are going to change the world. I try to temper it, though, with keeping at least one foot planted firmly in reality. It reminds me of this piece of reality from the movie Apollo 13. Kevin Bacon is in the simulator and he is trying to keep from 'coming in too steep', whatever that means in astronaut lingo, so he switches to manual. He counts out loud, two Gs, four Gs, six Gs, on up to 12 Gs when Tom Hanks says, "12 Gs; we're burning up." As we are exploring the evidence and contemplating theories, just a word of caution to recognize when we have hit 12Gs.

Sometimes an analogy can provide some clarity. There must have been rumors floating around about Arnold's baby with his mistress. Just imagine the chatter about out of focus photos and limo drivers dropping off women at Sacramento hotels, overheard conversations, comparisons of the mistress's husband's out of town calendar and Arnold's schedule and on and on. The news media covered little bits and pieces but most people just shrugged their shoulders. Granted no religious fanatics were supporting him. The CW was that he was an adulterer, but did not go so far as to include a child. What finally changed that perception and broke the story wide open? His open confession.

We probably won't get that in this case, but I'm confident we will find something just as compelling.

Laura Novak link

7/3/2011 11:02:41 am

Oui, mais Je crois que c'est Palin qui a peté. Non?

Conscious at last!

7/3/2011 11:03:34 am

There is enormous talent here. This is a highly skilled and very intelligent group of people. We know that SP did not birth a baby on 4/18/08. We also know, in our brains and our hearts, that the MSM stopped being a true news source many years ago.
What is the point of knocking on that door?

The future for truth and for democracy in journalism is RIGHT HERE. You are creating it Laura, Brad, Lit Brit and others.

Why not use the internet in more sophisticated ways to get the message out? Why not use the tremendous creativity and brain power that is already here to shine that light???!!?!

I know you will because it is the only way forward at this point.

You don't go shopping at a bakery if it's a pair of shoes that you are looking for.

The power and the ability is HERE!!

Allie

7/3/2011 11:41:58 am

Yeah, sorry, Jane for my sloppiness. Thank you. Bill Clinton, for signing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act = HIPAA. Too bad you weren't able to really nail down the republican Congress for the prohibition of insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. That would have changed everything.

My personal pet peeve are my co-workers who refer to the former JCAHO, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, as JACO. How the heck do they get JACO out of JCAHO. I couldn't do it and I always say,"The joint commission..." Lo and behold, JCAHO must have sensed some confusion out there because it is now named The Joint Commission. Yeah.

One of my former supervisors was the compliance officer for HIPAA regulations. Can you say monthly newsletter?

DebinOH

7/3/2011 11:43:44 am

I know that I am one who is not absolutely positive that she didn't give birth (don't throw rocks at me please). Believe me I am NOT a troll. I have been with this story since it broke and I found all the anti-Palin blogs in 2008. When I look at this picture I see NO obvious signs of pregnancy. Honestly, not even a three month pregnant belly. It does defy logic.

If I was in court and presented all the pictures and all the ridiculous things she has said (wild ride, where she actually gave birth, etc.) I could not find her guilty because there IS reasonable doubt. Unless, there is a document saying she had her tubes tied (and this isn't even 100 percent effective - I have a good friend who had her tubes tied and got pregnant again at like 45) or a hysterectomy. A document that shows Trig was not born to her, etc.

We know that she is crazy. There is not one doubt about it. This is what always gives me pause. Could she actually have given birth in Jan? The other thing that gives me pause is that Gryph says Bristol is not the mother.

I think that Track looks so much like Menhard (sp?). Heck, Trig looks more like the Palins than Track does. I think Levi looks more like Todd than Track does. That is what gives me pause too.

But this story deserves an answer because she is a danger to everything good and right about America. Even if she proves without an ounce of doubt that she did give birth and the wild ride is true that alone tells me she isn't qualified to run anything. Her judgment is crazy and how no one has even questioned that aspect still shocks the hell out of me.

Thanks again Laura and Litbrit! Regardless of the outcome of this story it is one that needs told. To me the way she has received pass after pass after pass is one of the weirdest things ever. We NEED to know why.

DebinOH

7/3/2011 11:50:15 am

I should add that maybe if this were anyone other than SP I would not be on the fence. She is just one of the craziest people and crazy people do, well, crazy things. Believe me I wish I could come to a conclusion either way;)

viola-alex

7/3/2011 01:15:43 pm

I realize this thread may be shut down for the holiday, but it's first chance I've had to say again, welcome, litbrit, and thank you for another eloquent argument. I've missed your wise words.

I am, thankfully, not a journalist. No primary sources for me. I'm an artist who mistrusts facts more than I do well-written fiction. (Which is the whole point of art. To be more true than fact.) A birth certificate? forged. DNA? Who did the tests? Tubes tied/hysterectomy? Who says and why. Money buys facts.

After the Bushes, Reagan, the Warren Commission, Schwartzenegger. . . anything is possible. Except that Sarah Palin gave birth to a DS child exactly as she's tapped for VP to satisfy a rabid religious right. What are the friggin' damn odds of THAT?

However, as much as I dislike the man, I would trust Christopher Hitchens' word. Where did he say he heard that Trig is Biologically not Palin's?

Banyan

7/3/2011 01:47:25 pm

@ laura

Ouvre la fenetre!!!

Ferry Fey

7/3/2011 02:26:44 pm

Allie, I remember Gary Condit. And what's more, I was one of the people involved in online discussion regarding his missing intern Chandra Levy, in summer of 2001 (my online handle dates back to then). I'll stand by the conclusions many of us came to back then, that the preponderance of evidence showed that Gary Condit was involved with her disappearance. My recollection was that we did so with a whole lot more specific evidence than we do here in presenting a case for Sarah Palin's faked pregnancy. So probably not the best thing to compare it to.

ginny11

7/3/2011 03:57:41 pm

I believe that Sarah Palin is not Trig's birth mother.
What would it take to convince me that she is?
Medical records and live or recorded video statements from her doctors. Credible answers to any and all questions about all of the "things that don't make sense".
I believe that the only possible way Sarah Palin could be Trig's birth mother is if she had him extremely premature. Why would she hide it? Because she didn't know if he would live plus he had Down's Syndrome. If he didn't survive, she would simply never tell. If he did live, possibly she had considered, at first, giving him up for adoption. But then, she saw his value, politically.
It's also possible in this scenario that maybe she didn't tell anyone she was pregnant because it wasn't possible for her to be pregnant by Todd.
Maybe it's really Todd that has Sarah by the "balls" and not the other way around, LOL!
Really though, if I'm going with KISS, then I believe that Bristol got knocked up in early summer of 2007 by Levi, pretended to be sick with mono when her belly was bulging too much to avoid questions at school, and had a premature, Down's syndrome child anywhere from very late Dec. 2007 to early Feb. 2008. Sarah was working on getting Bristol and Levi to give Trig up for adoption, but they refused. Once it became clear that Trig was "out of the woods" and would survive, and B&L weren't going to give him up, Sarah began secretly planning to fake a pregnancy. Better that Trig be her child than have a daughter that got knocked up while she was spouting abstinence-only nonsense. And she knew that once she made a public announcement that she was pregnant, Bristol's loyalty to her mom would prevent her from revealing the truth. She counted on Bristol to keep Levi quiet, until she got him to sign away his rights (including a non-disclosure clause).
The monkey-wrench thrown into this perfect plan was that Bristol got knocked up AGAIN. But it was too late, Trig was now "Sarah's" for better or worse. And she was able to use him politically to help her secure the VP slot with McCain.

Ivyfree

7/3/2011 05:43:19 pm

"I believe that the only possible way Sarah Palin could be Trig's birth mother is if she had him extremely premature. Why would she hide it? Because she didn't know if he would live plus he had Down's Syndrome. If he didn't survive, she would simply never tell."

Oh, no way can I believe Sarah would conceal an actual birth. Why would she? She's married- at least, presumably. She claims a prolife stance. Giving birth is about the one thing that the righties will allow a woman to do that they fully approve.

What would be the advantage to Sarah of never speaking about it? If Sarah really had a premature, special needs infant, she'd make sure the cameras caught her in the NICU, with her blackberrys and signing some bill, being a multitasking supermom. If the baby died, she'd get herself up in black with one of those long veils that are weighted with grosgrain ribbon, and talk about bravely accepting God's will. Her fans would love it. Sarah is ALL about the drama. One (among many) of the reasons I believe she faked the pregnancy is because she is such a self-serving drama queen, and yet nobody saw her in the hospital. That is completely different from her usual pay-attention-to-me approach.

Lidia17

7/3/2011 07:01:39 pm

@Bob, I don't think it was “one of life's ironies” that the Obama birther meme got pushed so hard; I think it was ginned up quite intentionally to distract from Palin's story: a smoke screen.

@Laura, I think the question was, what WOULD a good editor demand!? Let us know, and maybe someone out there can provide. Outside of a birth certificate, what would constitute enough of a smoking gun? Besides the photo, of course!

Really, I have to disagree with @DebinOH. In a court of law, given the sheer volume of circumstantial evidence, I wouldn’t imagine that Palin could prevail. The standard is "reasonable" doubt, not "zero" doubt.

Look at all the things Sarah could produce, but didn't:

1.) a pregnant belly on March 14

2.) a concern for her fetus on the Wild Ride, despite her faux pleas to God.

3.) a simple statement from the hospital—“mother and baby are doing fine”—which is virtually standard in the case of celebrity/political patients. Compare how much we knew about Reagan's colonoscopy!!

4.) any pictures from Tri-G's first couple of days. If the Heath shot is a video still, there are none. Todd said “Chuck might have some…” What a “meh” answer! Like he couldn’t give a shit.

5.) any pictures with Sarah actually holding her "own" newborn, until the fake shower staged for the magazine cover. Instead, he's held by Willow, Todd, Grandma Heath… She wouldn’t even hold him for the big “official” family photo shoot until McCain ordered her to do so.

6.) any indication in her emails of any appointments or changes to routine, especially travel routine. Only AFTER Tri-G appears on the scene do we get a couple of doctor's appt.s.

7.) any real indication that she was breast-feeding, as she claimed. (An email talked about picking up formula.)

We can't just look at what is THERE; we have to note equally what is NOT THERE.

I'm still trying to understand why a journalist could not write all this up, without necessarily stating as a fact that Tri-G is not Sarah's. Just write up what we KNOW happened, and what Sarah SAID happened… sort of like the Demer piece but writ large. Let it all hang out there in the breeze.

The vast majority of people, while comprehending that Palin is nuts or at least incompetent, are not even aware that there is any sort of controversy over Tri-G in the first place.

Lidia17

7/3/2011 07:25:30 pm

@Ivyfree… exactly! Sarah was exhibitionist to the extent that she could allow herself to be, given the circumstances of her non-birthing Tri-G… she was just lame at it because of her mental illness. Too narcissistic to muss up her hair and pose for a sweaty-looking new mom shot, she got herself dolled up in a chic suit for the afterbirth party to shoot the magazine cover, though.

7/3/2011 07:28:57 pm

It would take a tremendous amount of evidence to convince me that SP had the baby.

A birth certificate could be faked. A DNA test might not be conclusive, given that TriG is probably Bristol's and both Bristol and Sarah share a lot of DNA. I'd need at least those things, plus some evidence that she actually went to the doctor a few times.

I was actually quite slow to come on board the Trig Truther wagon. First, because it is a really nutty thing to do, and second, because women in their forties, given that they are with child, are much more likely to produce a DS baby.

Notice that "given that they are with child" - it's already given in my original equation. But the fact is, younger women are much, much, much more likely to be "with child" than are older woman - and when you include that, the perspective shifts. Then when you start including all the rest of the information, you realize, hey, those crazy Trig Truthers might not be quite so crazy after all.

But there are many, many reasons this has not been pursued. First, either the public or the media does not have a wide attention span. Do you remember all the time devoted to Monica Lewinsky, at the expense of everything else? Or the OJ trial?

Second, the public does not demand the truth. I'm amazed that any of the news outlets are still watched, after they supported Bush and Co and the Iraq War. Bush began to lose credibility with that war, so that Obama could finally win - but why weren't more people up in arms about their television stations and newspapers and radio stations? Of course, some did speak out about it - but not nearly enough.

Third, humanity has a long, long history of lying and accepting lies. Even when reality is staring them in the face.

These are just some thoughts for a Monday morning.

7/3/2011 07:32:01 pm

@litbrit - I just want to say I have visited your site before this and found your writing extremely insightful. The link to the Palin photos ought to be the nail in the coffin. That is simply not a 7-month pregnant body.

Allie

7/3/2011 09:59:38 pm

I would just throw in there, Ivyfree, that there could be a shame factor about the baby having DS and keeping quiet about a loss.

Ferry Fey, I don't want to go off on a Condit tangent. I remember the case well, too. But, did you see my point that the case took a giant left turn when there was significant new evidence? I used that example because it was a case with completely new evidence.

ginny

7/3/2011 11:40:55 pm

@ivyfree: I pretty much agree with you, I was only speculating about circumstances in which SP might POSSIBLY be Trig's birth mother. Possibly, not probably LOL!

DebinOH

7/3/2011 11:44:19 pm

Lydia, It is okay to disagree with me;)

Look at how many people think the wild ride showed that she was a big, strong pioneering woman. If those people were on the jury and with the testimony of Bailey and her family + the CBJ letter they would say that she was NOT guilty. The pictures wouldn't mean crap to them. The picture on March 14 is weird (the camera angle, etc) and they could find some yahoo to prove that it was the camera angle, etc.

For me, it is not that photo on March 14th that proves she wasn't pregnant. The photo that gives me the greatest reason to believe she didn't give birth is the picture when she comes back to work three days later with NO postpartum body at all. I don't know ONE person who looked like they never gave birth even after two weeks following the birth of a baby.

viola-alex

7/3/2011 11:57:46 pm

Seems we're in real Brad S. territory here. If the MSS can't do a pregnancy hoax story without primary source proof/facts, they can at least do the story they did (ad nauseam) on the Obama Birth Cert-- which was the Birther movement story. (The players, what they believed, what they wanted.) They covered the hell out of that.

So where's the MSM story on the Trig Truther movement that won't die? The blogs, what we consider proof, how many people believe etc. . .

(@Ivyfree. Exactly! The fact that Sarah didn't MILK Trig's birth and pimp it all to the max, is PROOF to me that it was a Hoax. Also, what are the odds that a VP candidate in her 40s conveniently gives birth to a special needs baby at just the right time for her selection and her party's ticket? Simply impossible.)

Mhurka

7/4/2011 12:24:22 am

Because of the horrific nature of the hoax the desire for irrefutable evidence is very understandable.
By the way, if several witnesses came forward (such as state gov't office employees who saw the governor almost every day )and testified that 2 days prior to the Gusty photo the governor was flat as a board then that would seal the deal for me if I was on the jury.
Incidentally, I find it difficult to believe that only a small handful of people knew about the hoax or witnessed something super suspicious because SP did not live or function in a hermetically sealed box. Just sayin'.

Molly

7/4/2011 12:52:40 am

Alternatively, if the real parents of Trig came forward, that would be irrefutable. Mercede Johnson has just posted a blog disputing Bristol's version of events. She says the tent episode happened in the summer. If true, then that means all the dates need to be revised again.

http://mercedejohnston.blogspot.com/2011/07/bristol-misnamed-her-book-it-should.html

7/4/2011 02:04:17 am

Molly, the date of the tent episode only matters if Bristol got pregnant as a result of that encounter. She tries to convey that impression in the book, I think, but if you read carefully she admits that she continued to have sex. And Mercede's post today confirms what has long been rumored, that Bristol's virginity was long gone by the time of the camping trip.

Molly

7/4/2011 02:32:22 am

jk, I see where you are coming from. I assumed she got pregnant fairly soon after the tent encounter but I now realise it could even have been the following year.

Palintologist

7/4/2011 02:49:22 am

Dear Residents of Alaska,
Happy Independence Day!

Alaskans, Today is a most appropriate day to show what great citizens you are. Show your patriotism to this great country by exposing and sharing with the world what you know about the Palin pregnancy hoax. Your country needs you. You owe it to your country to come forward. Be a Patriot!

7/4/2011 03:10:57 am

Statistics. Numbers. We can use them to our advantage.

Laura, do you have internal counts on the numbers of visitors your site is generating? How many hits you're getting?

If they're sufficiently significant, they might cause s few media joints to sit up and get this story going mainstream.

Brad Scharlott

7/4/2011 03:55:08 am

The historian in me is sure SP did the hoax, and I have published as an historian

If I was the editor of a newspaper, I would not state as a fact that the hoax happened until something more concrete came along.

Laura, we might want to do a conversation on the differences between history and journalism in this context.

Ottoline

7/4/2011 04:01:56 am

Laura and Banyan -- We've all been shouting "ouvre la fenetre!" since the presidential election, and the powers that be keep ignoring it, or saying "prove it," or saying "I smell it, but that's not proof." Saying "I'm a pet-nostic; I need more proof." (Or even "he who smelt it, dealt it.")

But actually, I'm glad we have skeptics commenting and staying with this: they hold our toes to the fire and will make us eventually bring some better evidence that WILL get that window open.

So thank you, TrigNostics! Stay with us!! And a happy 4th to all.

Banyan

7/4/2011 04:23:32 am

The theory about "Trig" -- any of them or all of them-- being born extremely prematurely doesn't work for me.

Extremely preterm infants (and by that I mean born at less than 27 weeks gestation -- just do not grow up looking like any of the "Trigs" or "Tripps" we've been shown.

It is *possible* that Ruffles may have been born somewhat prematurely (say 30 weeks or up), but extremely preterm babies and children have telltale signs of prolonged NICU care (elongated thin heads for example) that none of the older babies we've seen with Sarah or Bristol have shown.

lilly lily

7/4/2011 04:30:10 am

Mercede is talking selectively.

Namely Levi didn't like to have Britstol drink as she becomes promiscuous. And she is a noisy sexual partner.

A relation was given a room next to Levi who was sleeping with Bristol, IN THE JOHNSTON HOME, and he was embarrassed when he talked to Levi in the morning to suggest he tell the girl not to be so ENTHUSIASTIC. I"M not quoting exactly.

For further info on the Bristol lies in regards to the supposed stolen virginity, go to Mercede Johnstons blog.

Not a virgin. Not an abstainer from liquor, and certainly no innocent as to sex or drinking. Mercede claims Bristol was the one who was out looking for liquor before the tent campout.

She mentions witnesses.

Perhaps Mercede wants to capitalize on the rest of the story other than to debunk the stolen virginity story.

I'm not crazy about any of the cast of Characters in this Morality Play. They do have their own agendas.

But I do think Levi is a basically honest guy.

search4more

7/4/2011 05:22:45 am

you should all get together and make a Wiki. It seems to me that you are hoping that new people will pick up this story and you think it's obvious that once people look into it they will see the proof. The problem is that all the evidence good, and some bad, is finely smeared across a number of blog posts and deeply buried in comment sections that no one will easily find unless they dedicate many hours to doing so. If I'm right about this then the thing you should all be doing is collating the good stuff in one place.

1 or 2 photos can be dismissed. Many cannot. 1 or 2 odd things that Palin has done can be dismissed, but tens all together can not.

No one has to do any ground breaking research, just all team together and copy it all in one place in a logical manner such that a person that knows nothing about all this can follow it. it's important to be dispassionate about it and think about it from the sceptics perspective.

not me

7/4/2011 05:52:00 am

memyselfandI - I read Mercede's post differently.

I don't think she suggested Bristol had sex with the cousin - the cousin overheard her "enthusiasm" in Levi's bedroom with Levi.

Interesting to note however that Bristol was staying overnight (and for at least 2 nights in a row) in her boyfriend's bedroom. And this was supposed to be before the tent incident, so she had to be no more than 15!

lilly lily

7/4/2011 06:02:50 am

Bristol has a reputation as being slutty.

Her own doing.

Bristol can't change that, and she may not be able to ignore her past and move on. What she can't do is erase her own words, and what others have said and written about her.

Her book won't do it.

viola-alex

7/4/2011 06:04:33 am

@Brad S. I fully understand the difference in journalism and history, fiction and feature story, primary sources and wishful thinking. My point is that the MSM covered the Birthers as a movement, which is factual. But NO MSM story has been done on the TrigTruther movement which does indeed exist. In fact, we don't even know how big we are because our primary players have never been identified the way the Birther ringleaders were. YOUR article, I believe, gave us the biggest boost of all time, simply by comparing the two movements and their subsequent coverage and non-coverage.

We don't even get our own chance to look as silly as Orly Taitz (or whoever she was) did.

Surely, for some editor somewhere, that there are still a bunch of Trig Truthers out there, even as SPalin fades, should be a decent feature story.

--

I also proposed that with help, I could write a WIKI on "pregnancy hoax." This would easily survive the wiki editors, because the term "pregnancy hoax" exists in several documented ways, including Desperate Housewives, empathy bellies, the high school student who conducted an experiment, and the beliefs of the TrigTruther movement.

7/4/2011 06:10:36 am

lilly lily, I've also long sensed selective truthtelling from Mercede. There are certain questions she just doesn't answer. My guess is that either she has signed a legally binding non-disclosure agreement re: Trig/Ruffles and maybe Tripp, or she's afraid of retribution against herself or her mother, or, as some have suggested, she's protecting her father, who she knows to be Trig's father ("why would the Johnstons need a geneticist," I believe that's the question Wholy Mary asked.) But when I read what Mercede has written I wonder about lies of omission, not lies of commission. That is, I think she tells the truth; she just might not tell all of it.

PS. Agreed with not me, the cousin was in the next room & overheard Bristol's "enthusiasm," he didn't sleep with her himself. At least not that we know about.

lilly lily

7/4/2011 06:11:08 am

If she Bristol can't drink and abstain,and it causes problems for her, she should join Alcoholics Anonymous.

Not go around pretending she is an innocent and that she has been victimized while her virginity was stolen since Levi fed her endless wine coolers.

I doubt she is cut out for celibacy. She is young and full of beans. No one faults that in this day and in our present culture.

What they fault are all the lies and hypocrisy.

Floyd M. Orr link

7/4/2011 06:29:13 am

Search4more, you need to read Paradigm Shift. It's all in there.

Ottoline

7/4/2011 11:29:27 am

Floyd -- I'd be more likely to read Paradigm Shift if you gave us an idea of your thesis, your point, or how your book differs from Bailey, Dunn, Scharlott. Then, if what you said interested me, I would follow up. I just looked on your site -- an old post says your book is not yet published. I prob didn't look in the right spot, but I'm not likely to spend much time looking when all you say is "it's all in there," or "Step out of the Trignostic Zone."

7/4/2011 01:35:44 pm

@search4more and anyone else who hasn't seen these - if these aren't enough, I don't know what is:

(and if you want to find them on, search for "perfidy sarah palin")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9ZtzPI2OMw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZSVMzeR5jU&feature=related

7/4/2011 01:40:30 pm

@Lidia17

First let me tell you how much I admire your work - I've watched your videos many times.

Second, what's the source on McCain's telling Palin to hold the baby? I read it before but was not able to track it down later.

comeonpeople

7/4/2011 09:32:13 pm

@Ivyfree and Lidia,
I can see Sarah hiding a pregnancy and premature birth becasue she wasn't having sex with her husband.....that could cause beaucoup (the extent of my french) problems for her. If the unfortunate baby died, so much the better for her indiscretion, if it lived, turn lemons into lemonade.
But I think Ruffles is the baby that Bristle had prematurely. Where he is ???Who knows. Tri-gs, any of them, all of them, procured by the Fundies. Tripp really Bristles..look at his chin. Before she turned hers into the Dave Murray Downhill

nenagh

7/4/2011 10:46:55 pm

I also want to thank Litbrit for that great post..

To see Bristol on national TV , exposes the SP/Bristol Palin group-mind set .. it may seem rational to their family when sitting around their kitchen table, but is downright odd to many Americans..

It is a pleasure to read your blog, thanks Laura.

lilly lily

7/5/2011 12:23:00 am

As a mother, I would not allow a 15 year old girl to sleep in my sons bedroom.

And if "enthusiatic" noises of appreciation and orgiasmic pleasure issued from said bedroom, even in daylight I would soon call a halt to said activities.

The Johnstone adults were obviously permissive parents, and the Palin adults indulged their daughters whims. Both families share some of the responsibility for their children.

Bristol thinks her mother was cool.

I'm not saying the parents caused it when you have two hormonally driven spoiled kids, but they certainly allowed this obviously sexual relationship to flourish.

Well, now they both are mired up to their ears, and the Trig-Ruffles-Tripp saga continues.

Obviously, the Palin family are a tacky reality show without any continuous film being shot.

Mama of course is the beautious star, and Bristol and Willow are the frisky engenues. Todd, Track and Piper are the secondary stories lines, and the elder Heaths the comic, eccentric character actors.

Floyd M. Orr link

7/5/2011 12:52:44 am

Ottoline, I am in a precarious position in the marketing of my own book through these blogs, so I try not to overdo it. Paradigm Shift was released 1/1/11, months before Bailey's and Dunn's books. You are aware of them mostly because certain bloggers want you to be. Some of these same bloggers do not want you to read Paradigm Shift, even though they are treated fairly in the book. It is all part of the deep mystery of Babygate. You can find plenty of details about the book on my blog or at Amazon. You can read potions of it at Amazon and Google. You can even download the whole thing to your computer for six bucks. The book contains the whole story of Babygate as well as we can presently know it. Anyone who is unaware of Babygate can read the entire story in this book. Jeff, one of Laura's regular commenters, adequately described it here in a comment on 6/30/11. (Thank you, Jeff!) If you are just looking for a quick fix that will get Sarah Palin out of your face, you won't find it in The Palin Matrix. Paradigm Shift describes the big picture of how we got into this mess as a nation and suggests the hard decisions we must face to pull ourselves out. Thank you for your support.

Lidia17

7/5/2011 01:18:04 am

@V, thanks for the compliment!

All I can find now is that mlewis (I think this could be maelewis) talked about it here:
http://palindeception.blogspot.com/2009/06/interesting-slip.html?showComment=1245536362691#c6778796398120861059

and here: http://palindeception.blogspot.com/2009/08/whos-not-your-mama.html?showComment=1250867537272#c7953125268524521909

but I don't know the original source for the McCain utterance. I know I saw it somewhere besides these comments from mlewis. I probably should not have repeated it, although it seemed burned into my brain from somewhere!

There really was a shot set up with Bristol holding Trig, though, which you can see here: http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Ten-More-Clues-in-the-Who-by-Philosopher-Jay-081012-969.html

Ottoline

7/5/2011 11:09:55 am

Thank you for a good response, Floyd. I'm going over to amazon and Goog now, to take a look.

Ottoline

7/5/2011 12:53:21 pm

I heard something about the following but only now did I see it on HalfSigma; just wanted to park it here:

HEAD: When will we find out the truth about Sarah Palin and Trig?

Three days ago I wrote:

Palin hasn’t proven to me that she’s being truthful about the circumstances of Trig’s birth. Weiner hasn’t proven to me that he’s being truthful about the circumstances of the Twitter photo.

Now we know the truth about Anthony Weiner. He is a liar. He must get some sort of sexual pleasure from sending lewd photos to women he met on the internet.

Henry Blodget is still seeking the truth about Sarah Palin and Trig.

Is this anonymous comment a complete fabrication, or is it the truth? This is the text of the comment:

______________________________
Shitfire, I've held my tongue long enough. I'm going to share a few details I have been keeping under my hat because I thought even if I posted "Anonymous", it could still be traced back to me. I have done a bit of research and decided it's worth the risk if these little tidbits of information aid in the investigation for any bloggers, authors, et al.

First of all, I am NOT part of the Palin family. I work in the healthcare field and that is how I know what I'm about to share. Please respect my severe anxiety and trepidation about posting and do not ask where I work, my exact position, or other questions whose answers would only serve to immediately identify me.

This is what I know- you can take it or leave it, believe it or write it off. I'm only sharing at this point because I simply cannot believe this ridiculous farce is still...well, a ridiculous farce.

1. Trig was born two months earlier than stated by the Palins. He was NOT born at Mat Su. Keep in mind the only way I could state certainly where he was NOT born...is to know where he WAS born.

2. Trig was not hurriedly released from hospital care, necessitating what is often called "the wild ride". I believe (this is just my perception, not a "fact") Sarah Palin planned the Wild Ride well in advance as it served two purposes: she didn't have to worry about trying to look pregnant in formal attire at the evening function that night in Texas, and it allowed her the perfect cover story here in Alaska- everyone wakes up and voila, the governor's had her baby.

3. Trig that was born AS Trig (meaning the "first" Trig) did indeed have an ear deformity. In my professional opinion, it is highly unlikely the infant presented at the Republican National Convention was the "original" Trig.

4. Cathy Baldwin Johnson WAS present at the delivery of Trig in February 2008. Sarah Palin was NOT present.

5. Tripp Johnston was also NOT born at Mat Su.

6. Tripp Johnston was not born until five weeks after his announced birth.

7. IF Mercede and Levi Johnston visited Bristol and an infant at Mat Su in December...it was 100% staged. I do not feel this was the case- I (again, this is just my opinion) feel the Johnstons were strong-armed by the Palins. I believe Mercede and Levi both signed nondisclosure agreements and possibly took payoffs.

I am 100% certain Mercede nor Levi could have been present at Tripp Johnston's birth in "December"...because Tripp Johnston was **NOT** born on any day in December.

I can state with certainty that Dr. Cathy Baldwin Johnson was initially duped into this hoax and then blackmailed to continue it. She remains conflicted and torn about whom she is best serving by keeping quiet.

I can state with certainty that Dar Miller, the sweet and lovely woman who perished in a suspicious house fire in 2008 was ASKED to assist in caring for Trig. I do not know whether she ever considered or accepted the job. I cannot stand to think that her death was the result of a purposeful act. However, I find it extremely suspicious that any attempt to access records or evidence of the house fire (which should be public record if the case was ruled accidental death and closed) are met with what I can only describe as inappropriately aggressive stonewalling.

I can state with absolute certainty that virtually the only thing completely destroyed beyond repair in the arson fire at the church was several file cabinets filled with files related to births, adoptions, and foster care placements. Considering these were metal file cabinets, the arsonist must have opened the drawers and poured or placed an accelerant IN them.

As with the fire that claimed Dar Miller's life, any attempt to obtain evidentiary reports or investigative statements on this incident are met with complete and volatile obfuscation.

Lastly, I know it to be medically impossible for Sarah Palin to have become pregnant after 2002. The procedure she had made it impossible for a reversal to be performed. I have seen several pages relating to these medical records including an anesthesiologist's report and a perfusionist's stand-by report. (indicating his services w

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Lit Brit A Year Later

Leave a Reply.

Laura Novak

Blogs I Read

Categories

Archives