The Gusty Photo: A Conversation with Prof. Brad Scharlott

6/9/2011

BS: The most consequential pregnancy photo of Palin ever to appear is what has come to be known as the Gusty photo, because it shows Palin being interviewed by Andrea Gusty of KTVA-TV on April 13, 2008, five days before Palin allegedly gave birth to Trig.

The picture shows Palin in profile so that her very large belly is obvious. What made the photo so significant is that it appeared online in late August 2008 just in time to help quash rumors that had blazed across the Internet saying Palin had faked the birth of Trig.

The problem is, the photo appeared under mysterious circumstances. It was posted to Flickr on August 31 by “Erik99559”, who has never been identified, and key questions about it, and a second photo taken immediately afterward, have never been answered.

So, Laura, in light of what we have been talking about the past few weeks – how Palin sometimes did not look or act pregnant in the early spring of 2008 – this photo looms large. One major question: Is that large protruding belly real? And as our last few conversations have shown, there is good reason to suspect she was wearing a fake pregnancy belly.

Just as important: Was this picture, and the related one taken a few minutes later, staged to show Palin looking pregnant? Or were the two photos just a result of happenstance, of people taking pictures for reasons unrelated to Palin’s pregnancy?

Laura, you recently began trying to explore this subject with the people involved. To no avail, it appears.

LN: As I wrote in the previous post, I tried to contact everyone involved in these photos with the exception of the unidentified cameraman in the white shirt, and Mrs. Palin herself. Dan Carpenter and Gusty didn’t respond to my multiple and repeated requests. Bill McAllister and I went back and forth on four sets of emails until he outlined requirements for me that I would not meet. So, here we are.

BS: Can you tell us what those requirements were?

LN: I cannot. I assured him that our emails were private and confidential, and I have to honor that.

BS: Okay, so let’s get down to facts. The Gusty photo, which the McCain campaign people pointed to as definitive evidence that Palin had truly been pregnant, did a marvelous job of silencing most critics who claimed Palin faked the birth.

When questions about its authenticity arose, two “investigators” (graduate students, I imagine) of FactCheck.org, an offshoot of the Annenberg School of Communication, looked into the matter by calling Andrea Gusty. And Gusty told them that the picture was real, not “Photoshopped”, that she thought she had the only copy of it (implying it was taken with her camera), that she was surprised to see it on the Internet and that she had no idea how it got there. What do you think of the investigation conducted by FactCheck, Laura?

LN: If this is fact checking, then tell me anything you want, Brad, and I’ll tell the world that you told me and therefore, it is true. Apparently they did not ask why the picture was taken in the first place, whether anyone else had access to her camera, or whether Palin’s pregnancy had advanced dramatically in the previous month, as publicly available photos would suggest.

Gusty did say she saw the baby a week later, which she said she took as proof that Mrs. Palin gave birth to it. And perhaps at the time, it was enough proof. But I wonder how they all feel now in retrospect.

BS: The FackCheck report, which ridiculed people who questioned Palin’s pregnancy, did not convince everyone – a couple of blogs continued to question the authenticity of the two photos. One blogger even paid a Photoshop expert to analyze the photos.

Apparently in reaction to those blog sites, Gusty did a report for her TV station on January 12, 2009. She showed that the picture of her and Palin was taken during an interview she conducted on April 13. She said that Dan Carpenter, a cameraman for KTUU, took that picture as a favor to her. And she said that immediately afterwards she took this picture of Palin standing next to Carpenter and Bill McAllister (on the right), chief political reporter for KTUU:

BS: Before we analyze these photos, it’s important to note the following: Palin’s own calendar for this date had two entries:

“2:45pm-3pm GOV Press Availability (JNU – 2nd Fl Capitol)”

[at 5pm] “Gov Live Shot w/Channel 2 Andrea Gusty re: Session (JNU-Governor’s Office)”

BS: What do you make of these pictures, Laura?

LN: Let’s start with the first photo. The calendar indicated that only Gusty would interview Palin. But it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine KTUU might be added after the calendar entry was made.

But if KTUU was added, where is the other camera - the other video camera? Typically, cameraman also travel with their “sticks”, meaning their tripods. They set them up, put the camera on for a steady shot, and shoot the interview. Okay, so the one cameraman shot this on his shoulder. A little odd to me, but let’s say they were in a hurry and he had to grab and go.

But if there were two reporters or more present, the cameramen usually if not always put their tripods right next to each other. I mean they stand cheek-to-jowl. Why? So that the governor, in this case, is looking in one direction. The reporters, then, stand out of the camera’s way, and extend their microphones. That’s why you often see the station call letters on the microphone boxes in front of the talking head.

What I see here is one reporter and one camera. But…Gusty and the governor are looking somewhere else. At another camera? Okay, then where is it?

BS: Off to the right somewhere? Maybe we just can’t see it.

LN: But then who is the cameraman? I take it that it’s Dan Carpenter, the man above here in the grey suit. Excuse me, did I just say grey suit? That’s another thing…in all my years I have never, and I do mean never, seen a cameraman – either in still or video – wear a suit! Unless it was to a private function. I mean, what was that all about? See the guy in the first shot? That’s what they usually look like. Rumpled. They often wear actual flack jackets and battery belts, etc. So, are we to believe that the photographer/cameraman for KTUU wore a suit to cover a regular story – one among many he might have been sent out on that day?

And what, did they wait their turn to interview the governor separately? I’ve never seen it done that way. Never.

If a cameraman has to shoot with the camera on his shoulder, it means they are in a hurry. If they are in a hurry, the governor wouldn’t do two different interviews. If they did one joint interview, where was the other camera? If there wasn’t one, why were Bill McAllister and Dan Carpenter there?

And if there was a “reasonable explanation” for this, then why not just tell me and stop the speculation.

BS: Gusty did say that she asked Carpenter to take the still picture of her interviewing Palin. I assume when you were a TV reporter, you never asked a cameraman from a different station to take a still picture of you and your subject. Does this picture make any sense to you professionally? Especially if it was Gusty’s personal camera?

LN: I never asked the cameramen from my own station to take my photo with an official. It’s highly unprofessional. It implies some sort of hero worship. It crosses a line. Look, I’ve seen examples of her work online. I understand she’s young and she was even younger then. I get that. And I get that this photo was probably for posterity’s sake, you know, to show her grandmother. But ethics keeps reporters, usually, from mixing it up like that.

BS: Well, it might have been for Gusty’s grandmother if it wasn’t staged to show Palin looking very pregnant. Let me point something out about the location of that photo: it’s where one hallway ends at another hallway, forming a T-shape. If I wanted to shoot a live interview of Palin from the front and simultaneously get a side shot showing her very pregnant-looking belly in profile, that’s exactly where I would place her.

And if I wanted to get a still shot that I could use in the future to prove that Palin looked very pregnant on April 13, then photographing a live interview would be an ingenious way to do it – because you could always dig up the video to prove the date. Which is exactly what happened. But it would take someone pretty smart and media savvy to work all that out in advance. I’m not sure Palin is that smart herself. But Bill McAllister is apparently a shrewd guy – he became a top political reporter in both Minnesota and Alaska – and has many years of media experience.

As you know, Laura, I wrote a paper in which this sentence appeared, referring to the second picture: “Palin is shown standing to the left of KTUU-TV newsman Bill McAllister, who coincidentally would become her director of communications in July.” And I sent a copy of the paper to McAllister to see if he had any comments.

He certainly did. He emailed me, and copied to many of my colleagues, the following: “If we ever meet, I'll slap you. In a different era, I'd challenge you to a duel. … The italicized word ‘coincidentally’ makes you a scoundrel …” He thus clearly tried to give the impression, if not saying so explicitly, that he played no role in staging the pictures.

What I did not know then was that McAllister had already given notice to KTUU that he was leaving – and probably had already negotiated his contract with the state to become Palin’s press secretary. Alaskan political blogger Andrew Halco, after reviewing state emails, raised serious questions along those lines in August 2008, writing:

“It appears clear that McAllister was negotiating a job with the administration while he was still covering them as a reporter during the legislative session. In fact, McAllister continued to cover the Palin administration for another three months after the email exchange.”

Well, Laura, I guess it’s not surprising, if McAllister gave notice of leaving to KTUU in early April, that he would have his next job lined up. But are you troubled by the ethical implications of McAllister’s arrangement, given he was KTUU’s chief political reporter?

LN: A longtime Alaskan journalist told me that there is an alarming cross-cultivation of reporters and government officials in Alaska. They seem to float seamlessly between the two estates and yes, one would find that troubling in any situation. Naturally, one wants to have a job lined up before one quits a current job.

But what’s not clear still is that photo: Were the two men in suits working the story at 5 p.m. that day along with Gusty (Where is their on-air version of it? Have we ever seen it?) or were they there on other business? Again, there may be a simple explanation. I just can’t see what it is on my own.

BS: So, Laura, I think it’s time to summarize what we know as to whether the two photos were likely staged. If they were not staged, then we have to surmise (since the folks in the photos won’t talk to us):

1)    That, for some reason, Bill McAllister and Dan Carpenter showed up for what Palin’s calendar indicated was to be an exclusive interview with Andrea Gusty.

2)    That, by chance, Bill McAllister happened to give notice to KTUU the week before of his intention to resign and, by coincidence, the job he had lined up was to be Palin’s press secretary.

3)    That, for some reason, Palin and Gusty chose not to have their interview in the governor’s office, as scheduled.

4)    That, for some reason, the KTVA cameraman did not bother to use a tripod as one would normally expect.

5)    That, for some reason, Gusty asked Carpenter to take a side-angle picture that showed Palin’s big belly in profile – and that also managed to get the KTVA cameraman in the shot with the camera on his shoulder, making it absolutely clear Gusty was interviewing Palin for a TV news segment.

6)    That Palin was indeed pregnant and showing mightily and, for some reason, had decided not to wear her usual scarf “disguise”.

7)    That, for some reason, Gusty decided it would be nice to get a picture of McAllister and Carpenter standing next to Palin right after the first picture was shot.

8)    That, for some reason, Carpenter was not in his normal work clothes and we don’t see his camera or gear anywhere.

9)    That, in some inexplicable way, the above two photos got out of Gusty’s camera and were posted to Flickr by a stranger, Erik99559, several months later, at exactly the right the right moment to squelch rumors of a pregnancy hoax – and, by coincidence, 99559 just happens to be the zip code of Gusty’s hometown, Bethel, Alaska.

Am I forgetting anything, Laura?

LN: Just that again, in all my years of reporting, I’ve never seen anything like this. Never.

BS: What can we propose as an alternative explanation if the pictures were staged? Keep in mind that this is just speculation.

1)       That Palin was not pregnant that day but instead put on a large fake belly and deliberately did not wear her usual scarf so the belly could be seen in profile.

2)       That Bill McAllister showed up to direct the taking of still pictures showing Palin looking very pregnant, just in case they might be needed later.

3)       That the interview was held in a hallway specifically so that Carpenter would be able to get a side shot of Palin’s fake belly protruding.

4)       That the tableau was organized for the benefit of the still shot: the location was where two hallways came together, allowing a video camera to the front and still camera to the side; and the KTKA cameraman did not use his tripod (which seems visible on the far right side of the picture) because the director, presumably McAllister, wanted the cameraman entirely in the frame along with Gusty and Palin, to make clear exactly what was taking place, should questions arise in the future.

5)       That McAllister decided to get two pictures, and hence posed in one himself, on the belief that the appearance of just one picture of Palin looking so pregnant might seem suspicious.

6)       That Carpenter was wearing a suit so that he could be in the second picture with McAllister and not seem out of place standing next to the governor in his normal scruffy work attire.

7)       That Gusty posted the two pictures to Flickr and put her hometown zip code in the name so she would not forget it.

Writing this has made me very sad because, if the pictures were staged to help Palin hide a hoax, that means a young woman was put in a very difficult position by older, more powerful people, and may forever have a stain on her reputation. Nonetheless, I must say the evidence strikes me as overwhelming that these pictures were taken for the express purpose of showing Palin looking very pregnant.

Your thoughts, Laura?

LN: I think that if this were all that was questionable about this pregnancy, then I would say we are looking too closely at it. But I’d like to think that if there was nothing to this, that one of these people would have agreed to talk to me, or even returned my messages.

But the curious events around this baby’s beginnings just compound the controversy. I would like to presume doubt that anyone was in on anything here. That this was a green girl reporter who wanted a couple of photos for posterity. But then why does none of the rest of the tableau seem normal? I don’t know. And it’s not for lack of trying.

Thank you again, Prof. Brad Scharlott, for your diligence and hard work on this story.

139 Comments

anonfornow

6/9/2011 10:43:40 am

One more thing to add to your list of "If the photos were not staged, then we have to surmise":

10) that, for some strange reason, the cameraman was very careful not to show Palin's belly in the actual news video, keeping the shot always tight on her head and shoulders.

The actual reason? Because if they'd showed that big belly on the ten o'clock news, everyone who'd seen her without it in the capitol that day would know it was a fake.

viola

6/9/2011 10:50:26 am

Very clear. Thank you L & B. All my [immediate] questions answered. Great link to youtube and the bonus Trig interview.

Also, I like your conjecture about McAllister being the brains behind a "safety" photo, especially since he was already acting on her behalf. Like a previous commenter said, Sarah's impulsive. Not much of a planner. McAllister might have convinced her she needed insurance.

Rationalist

6/9/2011 10:53:04 am

Strong vibe of McAllister complicity. Otherwise, why freak out at Prof Brad? What bother responding to you, Laura, and then attach too many strings?

Okay, so we are now up to...what...four people who had to know? Sarah, Todd, CBJ and, possibly, Bristol?

I've seen other counts elsewhere, but I'm convinced this is it.

voiceinwind

6/9/2011 11:03:20 am

Good work!

Laura, that photo with the two guys. They are both looking at someone shorter, like Gusty. But screechy is looking up to the right of Gusty, a different angle. Any thoughts?

Also, I think it's odd the way Dan is standing so casual up against a woman who is not only the governor, but a pregnant woman.

Ottoline

6/9/2011 11:05:29 am

Thank you both. Thank you, thank you.

Next, pls comment on:
--the office-baby-Palin photo: same day as Gusty pix??
--did the Gusty video air on Apr 13th or not?

KatieAnnieOakley

6/9/2011 11:12:26 am

No cameraman EVER wears a SUIT to a shoot! Never! Used to live in LA, know two cameramen, one of which I would feel 100% comfortable picking-up the phone to call, and I know, KNOW he NEVER, EVER wears a suit to work. To the Emmys, yes; to the Oscars or Globes, yes. On location? No. The equipment is heavy, bulky and tends to pick up "dirt". The cases are cumbersome, the lights... no. No way would a cameraman wear a suit.

Freesia

6/9/2011 11:20:28 am

Love your blog. Thank you for all the good interviews and your professional approach.

I have a question and in order to ask it I have to do a full disclosure: I am ignorant about photography. I have a digital camera I've never used. It scares me. :-)

But I wondered if it possible to do an x-ray type image or technique of a photograph? Can you put a photo through a process to see what is underneath the surface?

Because I notice that (as has been discussed here and there re the "empathy belly") that in every photo once she goes into her full on pregnant presentation, her shoulders change.I've stopped staring at her belly so much as I keep trained in on what's going on with her shoulders.

Is there any way to get an image below the photographed image?

betsy s

6/9/2011 11:22:02 am

There may also be some photoshop activity here. I can't undertand why tbe carpet doesn't match up under SP's feet.

viola

6/9/2011 11:31:17 am

In the January 09 rebuttal, Gusty focuses on the bloggers' claims that the photo was fake. She covers that story. What she doesn't address, and never has, is how the photo ended up online and became the only form of proof that Palin was pregnant. It seems like everything Palin is done with mirrors. One angle is always the way out. Gusty can state absolutely that the photo/video were real. As long as she stays on that line, she doesn't have to lie. But she can't veer off that line.

emrysa

6/9/2011 11:37:27 am

great post. there has always been something suspicious about those photos.

how interesting that the ONLY photo of the quitter that shows a large belly is also the ONLY photo of her "pregnancy" where she's not wearing a scarf. really? coincidence? pfft.

this photo was undoubtedly taken as "proof" for future use. and she got on 4 flights looking like this? hahahaaa yeah right.

molly malone

6/9/2011 11:38:03 am

Had Gusty caught Palin on the fly, rushing to get from point A to point B, the hallway interview would have made sense. But this was a scheduled interview. An interview which would have logically been conducted in her office or some other impressively official area--not a hallway with a bunch of clutter on the floor in the background.

I'm amazed at how much I learned on this blog today.

IWantTheTruth

6/9/2011 11:40:05 am

I noticed on Dan Carpenter's facebook that he also is from Bethel, AK. Perhaps one invisible aspect of these photos is what the relationships are between the various people. It's so very interesting that Bill McAllister was already preparing to be working for Sarah Palin. What a conflict of interest! No wonder he went ballistic when Brad pointed out that he subsequently worked for Palin. The truth was even more incriminating!! Very, very interesting! Well, done you two!!!!

Ennealogic link

6/9/2011 11:41:42 am

Terrific analysis and commentary, you two! The Gusty photos, as they have come to be known, have generated a lot of commentary over the last couple of years, but this is by far, the best analysis of what they are, what they are for, and how they came to be.

Without some principal in the matter stepping forward to dispute or correct or shed better light, I'd say yes, these two images were clearly and absolutely staged. Not only that, they were purposefully released and then purposefully deleted from the image-sharing account that was only ever used for this purpose. What else can we guess?

Ms. Gusty had no explanation whatever for how images taken on her camera suddenly showed up online and -- most importantly -- were first noted by someone at the Free Republic site. How would someone, anyone, stumble across an image-sharing account never before used, with an obscure username, that just happened to contain these pictures that were not even labeled as including Sarah Palin?

nyj

6/9/2011 11:43:34 am

First time poster here from New York.

FWIW, in her 'conspiracy' report on You Tube, Andrea Gusty identifies the video cameraman as Scott Favorite (sp?).

He might be someone to look up and see if he can give any details of the events of that day.

Great reportage, Laura and Brad - keep up the good work until the truth is out!

emrysa

6/9/2011 11:46:24 am

I meant to add an observation: in the 2nd pic, each of the men are atleast a foot taller than the quitter - yet her linebacker shoulders are wider than both of theirs.

LTA

6/9/2011 11:57:17 am

You guys are sizzling on this!

I wish Gusty would just issue a plain, unambiguous statement. But then, I also wish CBJ would do the same. And Levi. And...etc.

I know Gusty must have a decent measure of intelligence and drive to get where she got, so young. So you would think she knows her total refusal to answer questions or even acknowledge questions are being ASKED...makes her look extremely suspicious.

Ms Gusty I am sure you are reading this...don't you want to make a statement to Laura NOW, to outline your reasons for doing...whatever you did? Instead of being "busted" tomorrow by Palin's emails? I really don't think a lot of people realize they are in their last 12 hours to tell the truth on their terms. If they wait to talk until they are confronted with the black and white emails,
...they can't be surprised when NOBODY believes them.

I feel strongly no matter what happened, Gusty was manipulated in SOME way by Camp Palin.

People will forgive that, Ms Gusty. Truly! Everyone makes mistakes...not everyone has the spine to take responsibility for those mistakes. Palin may have influenced your actions at one time...don't let her continue to pull your strings. Would SHE do it for YOU? No need to answer, everyone already knows that one.

6/9/2011 12:09:06 pm

After reading today's earlier post re: the attempts to contact Mr. McAllister I reviewed Palin photos from March, April and May and found something potentially curious. Her bangs might be just like her belly, alternately growing and shrinking.

In the 4/13/08 Gusty photo Palin appears to have just had her hair cut. The bangs hit her just at the eyebrows.

In a photo published in the UK's Daily Mail and labelled as "two days before the birth" ie 4/16/08 her bangs are long. She's wearing them sideswept, but if they were worn down any woman who survived the 1980s bang craze could tell you they would hit her just below the eye. (In the photo Palin is wearing the black jacket with the missing button and a green scarf, hair upswept. http://preview.tinyurl.com/6e76k4p ) Does anyone happen to know if the date attributed by the Mail is accurate?

In a photo with newborn Trip and Tawd (date unknown, but can be seen here http://preview.tinyurl.com/3v3qpsa ) we see again very long bangs. She also has long bangs in the Triggybear photo two weeks later. That means her hair had to grow more than an inch in 3 weeks. In my experience that is awfully fast, even for a pregnant woman.

Maybe Palin's secret is really that she is Elastigirl, able to stretch at will.

One thing most curious about the whole silence on the Gusty photo is the deafening silence. Maybe someone here smarter than I has an idea why. If the photo was indeed taken on 4/13 there is nothing to lose by saying so. If all 5 actors conspired to take the photos later, why not just all say, "Yes, the photo was taken on 4/13"? In either case (true or false) it makes no sense to dodge all questions since the Politifact story.

Even if Palin doesn't want attention drawn to this photo, it seems less attention would be drawn by just acknowledging to any and all requests that the photo is what they say it is. Denial only piques interest.

eclecticsandra

6/9/2011 12:18:23 pm

The videographer was identified later. He was present when SP returned to her office after the election. His name is somewhere on PD.

As for wearing a suit, Dan Carpenter may have attended an official function for the close of the legislative session that day. There is an obvious spot on his tie, so he wasn't completely out of character.

6/9/2011 12:28:44 pm

The shoulders! If you look at a side by side comparison of Palin at the Spouse's luncheon on 3/29/08, her shoulders appear so much smaller than on the Gusty photo two weeks later despite standing at the same angle in the 3/29 still with the real pg chick and in the 3 amigos photo. She's wearing a pale color at the spouse's luncheon, so looking larger in black is counter intuitive.

Elastigirl. That's my guess and I'm sticking to it.

KatieAnnieOakley

6/9/2011 12:29:27 pm

The jacket is the same jacket from Dallas, that is, it is missing the second button down from the collar...

Ottoline

6/9/2011 12:35:37 pm

My biggest question now is: was the video broadcast in April as Gusty said? If yes, the resemblance between Palin's hair and jacket re Bailey's office-baby photo is a coincidence, and the Gusty shoot is convincingly dated at Apr 13.

IF it was not aired in April (and I'm betting it was not), then:
(1) the shoot could have happened in August;
(2) the Bailey+Gusty photos could have been shot on the same day (if we prove that, we prove the hoax);
(3) we would have the right to ask what motivated Gusty to lie?

Mrs M

6/9/2011 12:36:28 pm

I've never posted before...I hope this doesn't sound silly, or plain useless.

@Freesia got me thinking, with the comments about X-rays. If SP traveled to TX for the speech and appeared in photos and in person as visibly pregnant, there's no way she would have risked going through airport security and screening with the fake getup on. Right? No one is that dumb (I would think?)

Hence the email from the person who saw her in the lounge and from the airline all stating they didn't notice anything amiss. In fact, there's no way that thing could have even been carried on - it must have been packed in checked baggage.

curiousagain

6/9/2011 12:36:33 pm

A small shout out to Levi, if you're reading here. Now is the time to come forward. I know you know the truth and your silence may have been bought but to be honest, what they paid you isn't enough for the price you pay for silence. Your sister tried to come back and it looks like they muzzled her again. You have to understand they only have power as long as the secret isn't blown. The SECOND it comes out they lose their power entirely. Completely gone. The truth does in fact set you free.

6/9/2011 12:48:45 pm

MrsM, I believe there is a loophole that allowed Palin, as a sitting governor, to breeze through security without going through screening.

Who Knows?

6/9/2011 12:50:40 pm

SARA! SARA! SARA!
Look what came up after googling 'sara' - very interesting!

http://www-arc.com/sara/

Now what about that 19? (XIX)

6/9/2011 12:52:18 pm

Re: my 19:09 post... This photo http://preview.tinyurl.com/3v3qpsa appears to be from a series with a photo on this blog which dates the photo to 4/21. Notice the long sideswept bangs, completely inconsistent with a woman who had eyebrow length bangs in the Gusty photo.

LakeLucilleLoon

6/9/2011 12:52:43 pm

The fact remains, if Palin was truly as pregnant as she was in the Gusty photos then the Alaska Airlines attendants would have noticed her advanced state of gestation, which they did not, on either of her flights, to Texas and the back to Alaska. She did not appear to be this pregnant at her speech in Texas.

If Palin were this large on the plane then she possibly would have required a seatbelt extender.

If she was this large when spotted in the lounge at SeaTac, by the gentleman that shared his encounter with her via email, then that person would have certainly noticed she was in the very late stages of pregnancy.

None of it adds up.

Who Knows?

6/9/2011 01:07:06 pm

The Money Quote

In her memoir, "Going Rogue," Palin refuses to even use Bitney’s name, instead referring to him as a "BlackBerry games addict who couldn’t seem to keep his lunch off his tie."

Janet

6/9/2011 01:28:04 pm

Thanks for putting in the caveat about trying to contact the individuals before conducting this interview, it shows your commitment and due dilligence as a reporter while leaving doubt on the integrity of the information put out about this Gusty evidence.
And thank you both for your insight and commentary. I've been following the story since the beginning. I've seen photos lightened to show contrast, by not adding these, and using the original photos alone is enough to proove your point. Excellent work. So glad I found your site.

Phyllis

6/9/2011 01:28:11 pm

I guess whoever posted that April 13 picture wasn't at or forgot about the interview that Sarah gave the day she went back to work.Either that or they just never thought that anyone would find the audio of the interview.
A reporter asked Sarah did she have to hide her pregnancy when she flew back to Alaska. She then said there was no need to hide nor did anyone ever think that she looked like she was very pregnant.

Well that statement went flying out the window because of that one picture where she looked very,very pregnant.

search4more

6/9/2011 01:37:43 pm

The way I see it is that the more people that you all think were involved the less likely it is that this whole thing is true. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just saying that it is so much harder to keep a conspiracy under wraps if a lot of people know about it. After all the disclosure of it at this point has to be worth a lot of money.

It's all very weird. I can't explain it. I would love to find out the truth of what actually happened some day.

I was wondering if Gutsy is from the same church as Palin? ...Unlikely, but just a thought. It seems like Palin's more ardent supporters are religiously motivated.

LTA

6/9/2011 01:42:18 pm

After seeing the cheapo amazon belly which Prof. B super imposed on the Gusty pic and then carefully looking at the enlarged Gusty pic where shenis standing between the 2 men...I would swear, and I mean really SWEAR...that I can see the exact "form" of the amazon belly under Palin's cheap Kathy Ireland missing button jacket.

I mean really...look at the breast area (sorry if it burns your eyes) and squint.

I would bet anything she is wearing the amazon belly or something damn near identical to it.

Just reading through comments on previous blog post...please excuse all my typos. I got an add-on keyboard for my iPad and after seeing all the typos I made today, it's coming off as soon as I submit this comment.

gypsyrose

6/9/2011 01:42:22 pm

Hey, I just watched the video of Andrea Gusty's interview with sp and tell me if anyone else notices this. In the photo above of sp with Carpenter and McAllister, it appears sp has on a necklace but I see NO NECKLACE in her close ups in the video of the interview?????

Ottoline

6/9/2011 01:57:02 pm

Up: CONGRATULATIONS! You are right about the bangs -- they are a LOT longer at the gov's energy conference and in that first photo with Trig and Todd.

Bangs can't grow that much. Bingo!

So now we know that the Gusty photos did NOT precede the "birth." So they must have followed it.

And the chances that the Gusty "record straight" video actually aired as stated have just dramatically decreased -- maybe to zero, right on the dot.

Prove this to be wrong, Palin supporters! C'mon, give it your best shot.

peggy

6/9/2011 02:26:27 pm

Andrea Gutsy JUST got married (yesterday):

http://www.facebook.com/#!/AndreaGusty?sk=wall

Maybe, while she is in such a happy mood, she will answer your questions - you can send her a message via facebook.

molly malone

6/9/2011 02:26:29 pm

Did Palin ever make an appearance at any time near the end of that meeting of the Alaska legislature, and if she did, has anyone confirmed that her shape conformed to the swollen belly in the Gusty photo?(What I'm trying to figure out here is how many times Palin's "Gusty pregnant belly" actually made appearances outside of that one video interview and those still photos.

And at the conference in Texas, did she look like she does in the Gusty photo? (So far as I know, no photos or videos have surfaced of her making her speech in Texas, although I could certainly be wrong about that.) Did she wear the pseudo-pregnancy belly in Texas or simply show up pillow-padded? Either way, considering Palin's propensity for just making up shit I don't even know how much credence we can give to her statement that the Texas governor said, at the conclusion of her speech, "Are you going off to have that baby now?"

Yes, there have been recent accounts of two or three people now claiming--three years later--to have seen Palin in her glory of full-blown prospective motherhood. But the time lag is puzzling. We're not talking Rip Van Winkle, Little Men and a jug of long-sleep juice here. The "confirmers" have been awake all this time. So why wait so long?

Questions . . . I have always had so many questions. And now, yes, thanks to Laura and Brad--and input from commenters who've been tracking this story from day-one, we're moving forward through the murk.l Thank you, all of you, who have worked so hard and so long to fill in the torn out pages of a fascinating mystery book.

silver

6/9/2011 02:32:20 pm

Before this I've only seen the cropped pictures of Palin at the RGA in April. These ones have the full body shot except for her feet. This article is from Sept 08, 2008.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/pictures-show-palin-pregnant-a.html

elizabeth

6/9/2011 02:34:51 pm

Laura and Brad
Excellent Post! You have laid out an amazing scenario that really lines up to what I've always thought. Those pictures were staged and my guess is they were staged as insurance and it does appear that they were used for exactly that purpose.

It has always interested me how antsy and agitated those pictures get some of the main 'players'. It is especially interesting because you would think it would be the simplest thing in the world to explain, (to quote Ms. Palin) the who, what, when and where of their origins.

The obfuscation from Gusty and Allister alone is enough for any semi-intelligent person to say, 'WTF??' But when you add in all the other weirdness surrounding those pictures such as where did they come from and who released them and why did they show up so surreptitiously it is beyond mind-boggling. I will never forget how they suddenly appeared from nowhere yet within days everyone had seen them and suddenly voices came from all over started to say, "Look idiots, stop saying Palin wasn't pregnant - these pictures prove it."

What has always bugged me the most about this whole thing is how anyone who asked legitimate questions was shut down immediately. And I'm talking progressive, democratic, liberal sites. It just blew my mind how quickly the questions was shut down on sites such as Kos and Mudflats.

Thank You Brad and Laura for bringing this conversation into the mainstream with such intelligence and professionalism.

This is a story that needs to be told. As Brad has pointed out it isn't just about a conniving, manipulative power-hungry wanna-be Fame Whore. It's about how the press refused to investigate a story that had needed to be investigated. And the reason it needed to be investigated is because it never made any sense at all.

The problem as I see it for Sarah Palin is that no matter what she does, she really can't change the truth and the truth is she lied about giving birth to Trig and IMO the lie wasn't the worst part of it. The worst part is she sacrificed and humiliated her teenage daughter and she exploited a little baby all to further her own selfish ambition. She really is a disgusting piece of work.

voiceinwind

6/9/2011 02:39:33 pm

I was wrong on an earlier post. Morgan's blog was taken down the last day of January, 2009, before Audrey stopped blogging.

April 13 was a Sunday. And according to the ADN (article now gone) that session was adjourned "with time to spare" "at lunchtime." Why did Gusty say "late Sunday night?" Also, I think it's odd that empty boxes would have been placed in the hallway for the cleaning crew on a Sunday afternoon.

http://www.palindeception.com/blog/2008/12/photoshop-report.html

That interview is no longer available at KTVA.

http://palindeception.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-01-24T15%3A39%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=30

jeff

6/9/2011 02:49:28 pm

Laura & Brad,

Nicely Done. Laura, we have the name of Gusty's camera man, Scott Valentine, who was wearing the rumpled, white dress shirt.
I've heard of hunters forgetting to bring their gun or boots hunting; and a fisherman leaving hid tackle box or spinners in the utility room at home; and golfers leave their clubs behind by accident. So I guess a cameraman might leave a camera or tripod back in Anchorage. But over there they are SOL.

Seriously though, maybe all the print reporters had left for the day already left to catch a flight out of Juneau,

Ruth

6/9/2011 02:54:53 pm

Is there a web site that shows pictures of Sarah Palin in chronological order, and pictures of Trig over time? Not just one or two pictures.

Anon55

6/9/2011 03:38:56 pm

As I posted on another thread and as another commenter points out above, the other cameraman is Scott Favorite.

Like Laura, I used to be a journalist and was, at one point, employed by a major television network and a major newsmagazine. I too have never seen a working cameraman in a suit or tie.

As someone else pointed out, it looks like Mr. Favorite, like Mr. Carpenter, is wearing a dress shirt (albeit untucked in the case of Mr. Favorite) and it looks like he has a tie on.

Re AnonForNow's comment "that, for some strange reason, the cameraman was very careful not to show Palin's belly in the actual news video, keeping the shot always tight on her head and shoulders."

Oh, Ms. Gusty has already answered your question if you listen to her broadcast "debunking" the conspiracy. They didn't show Palin's belly because the story was not about her pregnancy, it was about the budget. And, if you believe that, I can sell you a bridge to nowhere (or to Bethel, Alaska).

Seriously, maybe someone should start talking to legislators who were present in Juneau on the last day of the session and see if Palin looked huge. I mean someone would have noticed, wouldn't they have? She didn't show much during her pregnancy, so someone would have noticed that finally she looked hugely pregnant. Unless, of course, AnonForNow is right and she wasn't wearing her Empathy Belly all day. (I did read on several websites, that if you have the genuine Empathy Belly, which weighs over 30 pounds, you are advised to wear it for only three hours at a time).

Mrs Gunka

6/9/2011 03:52:49 pm

Last night on Palingates, Amy made the observation that the pictures in Bailey's book includes one in her Juneau office (?) of Sarah holding Trig on a couch in front of a window. It's a picture we had never seen before. It certainly isn't a newborn baby..when she brought him to work on Tues after his birth nor is it the pictures of the baby that was shown at the time. Also included was a picture with 'Welcome Back Sarah' banner and balloons and baby cards behind the couch on the window ledge. What is interesting, Sarah has on that same jacket with the sleeves rolled up and the same hair style as in the Gusty photo! When did we ever see her hair like that before. Were all these pictures taken the same day? Why would she be wearing that hideous too big black jacket after the baby was born when we saw her in the office video in different clothes and flat as a pancake! I may be confused, and it was in her office in Anchorage on the fourth floor. These are the pictures Bailey included in his book. I don't have the book, but I saw it at our grocery store today ($26.xx) and I found the pictures in the book. She has the same hair style and same jacket as the Gusty photo. She was there signing some bill in her office. It's on Palingates open thread Weds. evening and is down in the comments. I can't cut and paste or would bring it over here for you to see. This all plays into what you are saying about this being a staged picture and I believe the signing was in Aug. That is not a newborn picture in that book. We have never seen this baby before. It's a close up of Sarah and the baby and just of the decorations in the room and no other people. Hope this shines some light on the Gusty photo.

dowl

6/9/2011 07:08:44 pm

Laura & Brad,

There is a video taken of Sarah, governor dedicating Alaska to God. A quite young baby Trig is in her arms, Piper is on stage with Sarah. Sarah introduces Trig to the group by squeezing his head in the most bizarre way to make him move. The video was at PD maybe?

Allie

6/9/2011 07:49:14 pm

Some observations. What is the physical evidence that the photos were taken after dark? The two windows that I see are the crinkly glass type and they appear to be office doors with the office lights out. I don't see anything that says 5PM like the schedule. So consider this - the session ends at 1 PM and of course SP is itching to get outta there, so she has someone call Gusty in. That would be a rush situation for not setting up the sticks. Say Scott WAS at church in more formal clothes and rushed in and didn't change. I don't think that is a tie around his neck; I think it is either a still camera (patterned) strap or a strap for a bag holding camera equipment. Futhermore, maybe Bill and Carpenter WERE in church dress, too. I can't explain why they were there.

Maybe that photo wasn't even taken that day, because here is what I find creepy. Someone mentioned the bangs, and at first glance I thought her hair in each photo was slightly different. But her hands kept bothering me, situated under her belly. Like everyone, I have taken several pictures in a row of someone over a timespan of minutes. It seems to me that it is rather unusual to capture the same expression time after time. There is always minor variation. But to my eyes looking closely at Sarah's picture in each photo, it looks like the same exact pose. The photo with Gusty shows more, so it could NOT have been taken from the photo with the two guys. But, everything looks identical to me in the guy photo. Put yourself off into space where SP is staring in the Gusty photo and look back at her and then look at the second photo and it's the same pose. You have to really look at the bangs to see how they could be the same, but I think they could be. If she was dropped in there, that could explain the discrepancy in proportions people have mentioned (shoulders.) I have no idea what that means, but it is just creepy.

As far as the Texas photos, remember she didn't control those. These she could.

Heidi3

6/9/2011 08:28:46 pm

Whether or not we've decided "Wholy Mary" is credible, I still think it's important to remember what (s)he said here on 6-2-11:

"I'm not bashing on Gryphen. I'm only making it clear that Gryphen's chat with Mercede and her mother leads some to believe that from Mercede's answers and her mother's answers, they aren't aware of Sarah's faked pregnancey. Simply stated, if Mercede says she doesn't notice the signs that she was asked about, then she didn't know. And that's not true. Sarah, Todd, Mercede, Sherrey (sic), Willow, Track, Bristol, Levi, Sarah's parents, Frank Bailey, Gusty, Dr. L...., CBJ, and I know. There could be a couple of others. I can't say who Dr. L..... is right now either."
- - - - -

So there is the Gusty mention. I'm so glad you're pursuing it, Laura & Brad. I'd venture a suggestion that the referenced "couple of others" could include Meg Stapleton and Kristen Cole. We know that the other attendees at Cole's baby shower (which I also think was staged, as it looks like an office) have been identified in a photo, so there are a few more possible 'insiders'. What about Sarah's sister Molly?

IMO, the Gina Loudon lead is HUGE, and has been since we first heard of her. I'm certain that she (as a fellow vindictive liar) taught Sarah the ropes about the political advantages of 'locating' a Down infant, and has plenty of connections. Gina is a "Doctor", via an (online) degree from the University of Phoenix. Watch a few You Tube videos of 'Dr. L' (could we be that close?) in action, and see if she doesn't fit Sarah to a tee. She seems to be everything that Sarah aspires to be.

comeonpeople

6/9/2011 09:19:55 pm

The Gusty photo has always bothered me slthough I know nothing of photoshopping/altering beyond fixing read eye and autifix! But, Who the heck is Palin looking at in the photo? She is like a disembodies entity there...she isn't looking at Gusty who is supposedly interviewing her, she isn't looking at the cameraman ready to give a response.....Do we know how tall Gusty is? Sarah is what, 5"2' or 5"3'? Gusty looks the same height, but Sarah, in all her "pregnant" swollen glory ,esp shoulders, seems like a shrinky dink, espcially compared to the three amigos where shoulders rival the males in the picture. I still think something is off in this picture.

comeonpeople

6/9/2011 09:25:20 pm

Sorry, forgot to add how odd that the carpet white spots don't line up. It does look like Palin was just plopped down into the tableau.

marieke02

6/9/2011 09:33:13 pm

Not too long ago someone on Politicalgates discovered a blog posting by a woman who had drawn purple lines of perspective on the carpet and walls -- and it was obvious Palin had been photoshopped in because they did not all converge and were off in a way that cannot occur. If you take a look at Palin's left thigh, you can see without even drawing lines that the carpet pattern has an extra set of white in a location that again just cannot be. Similarly in the Three Amigos, I'd bet anything Palin was photoshopped in, just due to her position.

Do we know for sure that the video was shown on April 13, or do we just have Gusty's word for it? But even if it was, these photos have been altered. Those perspective lines don't lie.

Brad Scharlott

6/9/2011 09:45:40 pm

Freesia: You cannot get an "X-ray" of what is below clothing in a digital picture, at least not in the usual sense. But if you are lucky, you can adjust light, color, etc. to get a good idea of what is under the surface, such as we did with the "square pillow" shot. But no such luck with the Gusty pic. I tried.

Ivyfree

6/9/2011 09:49:33 pm

"If SP traveled to TX for the speech and appeared in photos and in person as visibly pregnant, there's no way she would have risked going through airport security and screening with the fake getup on. Right? No one is that dumb (I would think?)

Hence the email from the person who saw her in the lounge and from the airline all stating they didn't notice anything amiss. In fact, there's no way that thing could have even been carried on - it must have been packed in checked baggage."

While I firmly believe that Palin packed her pregnancy bump during the flight home, I do want to respond to your comments. One, isn't there some way that a pregnant woman can ask for alternative security check, rather than the scans? Two, back in the Palin Deceptions days, I do remember reading that Sarah flies with VIP status and does not go through security check. Of course I don't know if this is true, but I do remember somebody posted that.

The other thing is that the person who spoke with Todd at Sea-Tac while the Palins were waiting to make their connection didn't say that Sarah didn't look pregnant. He commented on speaking with Todd and not realizing anything was going on with Sarah. He could simply have been saying that she didn't look disheveled or uncomfortable, that there was nothing to indicate that she was in labor.

DebinOH

6/9/2011 09:55:30 pm

betsy - these photos were discussed and dissected to death long ago and I believe the conclusion was that the carpet issue turned out to be okay. Yes, it looks strange.

Brad & Laura you have brought a few other issues regarding this picture that I am not sure we discussed too much before. Just another piece of the bizarre tale of Sarah Palin.

daisydem

6/9/2011 10:03:00 pm

Laura, re: the Gusty picture being posted by Erik99599 who has never been identified: it seems to me that there was an Erika on Palin's staff (either in Juneau or Anchorage) when she was Gov. I may have some of the previous emails that I printed out that show her name; if I cannot locate them, I will try to do a search of Crivella West database, but I know it could be tied up today working in the new dump of emails. My memory is bugging me - last name maybe Bolsted? something like that. I will get back to you.

Brad Scharlott

6/9/2011 10:29:48 pm

Ennealogic: What great additional info! Can you let me know how you know about the Free Republic connection? I'll contact you privately.

Brad Scharlott

6/9/2011 10:32:29 pm

Emrysa: That's why they do her bidding – with such big shoulders, you just know she could beat those two to a pulp.

Brad Scharlott

6/9/2011 10:47:53 pm

Up: About the hair: I think the hair is down in these shots so that it could be artfully spread over the inside of her shoulders to obscure the otherwise visible inside ridges of the pregnancy belly. Almost no other pictures from this period show her hair down. In the Dallas shots from a few days later, her hair is up and you can make out the ridges, even though she was shot from a distance. Also, the photos were uploaded to Flickr at high resolution then downsized to a lower resolution. That too was probably meant to obscure telltale signs of the fake belly.

daisydem

6/9/2011 10:51:41 pm

This may be nothing: this Erika may not be the Erik99599 who posted the Gusty pic: but it is Erika Fagerstrom whose title was Executive Residence Manager to the Governor's House in Juneau. I think she was considered Todd's assistant in his role as First Dude and therefore responsible in part for the social gatherings or whatever at the Governor's mansion. Her email account was [email protected]. There were two emails I found particularly interesting [I apologize now for not copying and inserting the emails here; could select the text but could not find the copy command]: 1. sent Thursday 10/04/2007: subject: Call Me: sent to [email protected] (that is Todd): she writes that "
715-8918 is the number that just called me. Call me on your blackberry, in the meantime I will see what the # is."

then 2. Monday, July 21 from Erika (again to [email protected]) Subject: Travel: "I'll take care of it and send you the confirmation code." this is a reply to his message to her: "I'd like to fly down to Juneau ....this evening leaving Anchorage at 6:50 pm, just Trig and I. The purpose of the trip will be to discuss Aug. 2 luncheon and meeting with Click." [Trig would have been only 3 months old; Sarah was supposedly breastfeeding (this is what we were told around the convention times)???? These may mean nothing and Erik99599 may not be Erika, but then again, she could be. As I have said before, from the previous emails one gleans the extent to which Todd and Sarah's personal stuff was facilitated by some of the staff members.

Ottoline

6/9/2011 11:36:35 pm

A big Ooops: I just now realized the Gusty photos were taken in Juneau, and the Bailey office+baby picture was in Anchorage. So they prob were not taken on the same day.

Lidia17

6/9/2011 11:40:51 pm

@anonfornow, thanks for adding that. I knew that the Gusty video didn’t show much of Palin, but I didn’t really think about it from the POV of Alaskan viewers at that time, in mid-April. They might have been shocked, indeed, if they'd seen how she presented.

@KAO, maybe Dan knew he was only going to be wielding a little point-and-shoot…?

@betsy s, we’ve heard that song before. Nice try.

@viola, EXACTLY. Gusty only responded to accusations that the PICTURE was fake, not that Sarah’s belly was fake. That’s why I am suspicious of those who kept (and keep) pushing the Photoshop avenue.

@Ennealogic, your point about the “chance” finding by the Free Republic person is important.

@LTA, when this comes out, her name will be “mud” whether she comes clean or not, now or later. She’s going to need a career plan B and an entire new life.

@Up and Ottoline, the problem with Palin is that she fools around with lots of wigs and hair extensions, so I don’t think anything conclusive can be determined by her hair-do on a given day.

@Mrs M, right you are. We’ve all assumed (we = we Trig Truthers) that she donned the belly for the Gusty photos and her RGA appearance in TX, but did not travel while wearing that get-up, which is why the airline spokesperson could state that “the stage of her pregnancy was not apparent.”

----------------------
I have to second Ennealogic, as one who has also been following this a loooong time, and applaud Brad and Laura on this post. EXCELLENT points being raised, especially those about the cameras, crew, and vantage points, from people who have worked close-up with the press.

I really thought nothing much further could be gleaned from these photos, but boy, was I wrong! …and happy to be so…!

Brad Scharlott

6/9/2011 11:46:32 pm

Lidia17: Praise from the praiseworthy is the best praise of all. Thanks.

Viola

6/10/2011 12:11:08 am

Did the video actually air in April on the news? I mean, did anyone see it? Does Gusty actually say it aired or simply by showing it (with banners etc) imply that it aired?

I prefer the simpler explanation that the still photo was staged and had to link to something real (the video) just in case. As a journalist, McAllister would know how many points of reference might be necessary for something to stand as a primary source. Hence, the Dan Carpenter "witness." (ummm, was Dan's move to MX already in the works?)

It would have been so easy to enlist Gusty's participation-- as a favor to help poor victim Sarah counteract cruel rumors.

@Heidi3: yes! WholyMary's voice did sound genuine to me (because of its distinctive tone of excitement and impatience), and your idea about "Dr." Loudon is intriguing.

@ Lidia 17, thank you for making the point that many hands make light work. Recognizing the names of commenters who I have followed for years always makes me feel more hopeful that I am not alone in my desire to stop Sarah Palin.

@Brad, Laura. I believe the only thing that will end Palin's career is a scandal. Political skullduggery or crude carelessness has never brought anyone down. . . I believe your focused work on this one major issue will save the day.

Alex (aka Viola)

Who Knows?

6/10/2011 12:13:40 am

What's Walt Monegan up to these days?

Getting Fired by Sarah Palin andLanding on Your Feet

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-davis/getting-fired-by-sarah-pa_b_133830.html

nenagh

6/10/2011 12:24:05 am

Re the top photograph:

The betsy s comment above.. made me reach for my little plastic see-thru ruler in an attempt to align the 'white' carpet dots. Weird. Follow the faded 3 full and 1 partial white dots in front of Palin's upper thigh, just under her jacket. Those dots seem to follow a different alignment to the other white dots on the carpet.

Looking at a larger screen the lines on the carpet immediately behind and in front of Palin appear to be close to being parallel.. but not 100% aligned to my eye..but that's not my query..

It's the the faded white dots in front of Palin's upper thigh that seem to track in a different perspective that I want you to look at..please..

The white dot, behind Palin's foot at the back.. must be a splotch of flour.. because it too is out of alignment as betsy s notices.

Maybe on your better computer screen to mine those faded dots will make more sense.

I read yesterdays comment where some commentators said that the photo had been studied and was not photoshopped.

So please check yourself.. and thanks, Laura.

Palintologist

6/10/2011 12:27:11 am

What strikes me is how close Palin's feet are to each other. As a male obviously I've never been pregnant but if I was carrying 30+ pounds of weight in front of me I would have difficulty standing straight with my hands in front of me and feet together. It makes you sway.If my feet were apart I would have a sturdier foundation.

nenagh

6/10/2011 12:28:08 am

Or Laura.. maybe the 'white dots' alignment has to do with the distortion of the camera lens.

I am not studied in photography..

But you both will know.. thanks again..

ginny

6/10/2011 12:33:20 am

viola said:
"Gusty can state absolutely that the photo/video were real. As long as she stays on that line, she doesn't have to lie. But she can't veer off that line."

Yep, and this is exactly why she won't respond to Laura's emails.
I am not convinced that Gusty was not a pawn in all of this. It could very well be that there is significance in the fact that she and Dan are from the same town. But I do think it's possible that he used his friendship/familiarity with her to help set-up the staged photos. If this is the case, I think NOW she knows she was used, but is probably afraid, maybe threatened (directly or indirectly) and is fearful of ruining her career.
Andrea Gusty, if you are reading this: you have to know that the truth will come out. It will. Ask John Edwards, David Vitter, and Anthony Weiner. But, whether you were complicit or used in the staged photos, you will be FAR better off as the one who came clean of their own free will, than if you are one of many who help SP cover-up (whether by force or free-will) and kept quiet about it.

Yellowgirl

6/10/2011 12:36:49 am

Re the carpet: not only the thigh area on SP, but check out the right foot of SP. There is a "dot" there (first one in the foreground) that does NOT line up! I'm not talking about putting in lines and measuring dots.... just look at SP's right foot, her heel almost touching on a white "dot" on the carpet that SHOULD NOT BE THERE!

anonfornow

6/10/2011 12:45:53 am

Everyone chasing the misaligned white dots needs to know that Palin's Deceptions chased this optical "clue", too, when they were analyzing these photos to death. Then a Juneau resident went to the hall and took photos that showed the carpet was just very poorly installed. Plus, if I remember correctly, those halls do not actually come together at a 90 degree angle, which is why the one wall seems to go off at a weird angle--because it does.

I've got to say, Laura and Brad, that you have added so much to the analysis of these photos. No one looking at them before had your knowledge of journalism. All we knew was that these pictures reeked of setup.

Berta Wilder

6/10/2011 12:51:29 am

4) "..and the KTKA cameraman did not use his tripod (which seems visible on the far right side of the picture) because the director, presumably McAllister, wanted the cameraman entirely in the frame along with Gusty and Palin, to make clear exactly what was taking place, should questions arise in the future."

That tripod is for the lighting equipment and not a camera tripod.

BubbaJeff

6/10/2011 01:05:15 am

To those who say Sarah breezed past airport security. It is well documented that since 9/11 former and current Senators and Govenors have had to submit to random airport screenings, the only exception is private flights. Sarah herself said of the 'Wild Ride' that she wasn't questioned because she didn't look pregnant. If this photo was 5 days before that time there is no way she wouldn't be questioned on the state of her pregnancy.

GypsyGirl

6/10/2011 01:05:20 am

Due to time issues, I'm sorry but I can't read thru all the comments and therefore don't know if this was already mentioned or not.

But in the 1st photo taken in a hallway [I'm to presume] and from appearances there is a wall & door behind the female reporter. Along the bottom of the wall is baseboard which stops at the door frame. There is also the middle chair-rail running across as well.
Question: What happens to the continuation of the base board ON THE OTHER SIDE of the door frame?
The "wall" itself continues above the door frame. The "chair-rail" continues too. But why does the base-board NOT continue along the other side of the door frame?
And what exactly is that along the lower part of the floor near the wall and directly behind Palin? What is that greyish brownish thing with lettering on it?

Thanks,
-GypsyGirl

Lidia17

6/10/2011 01:12:39 am

@Phyllis, exactly. If you haven’t seen it, you might like my second Perfidy video “The Wild Ride” which highlights Sarah’s self-contradictory statements:

The Perfidy of Sarah Palin; Chapter 2. The Wild Ride.

@Ottoline, I would continue to be careful about anything to do with hair. Palin has tons of wigs, wiglets, extensions, and she’s always changing her ‘do. You may be right, but… be cautious.

@molly, yes there are photos and video of her at the RGA. You can search on Palingates (I think they should have pix there, if they survived the deletion of Patrick’s flickr account) or see my video presentation above. Oops! “silver” has posted a picture link… thanks, silver! Here it is again:

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/pictures-show-palin-pregnant-a.html

@elizabeth, the totality of the shut-down across the political spectrum was pretty amazing, wasn’t it? Things that make you go, “hmmmm…”.

@Mrsgunka, Hi! I hope you are doing well. Thanks for the tip about the photo on Palingates. I have only seen a low-grade Kindle version; maybe this one will be better. I think the baby could easily be the chubby Heath version a week younger… why not? It’s sure not Ruffles, though, if Ruffles was really photographed on May 3.

@dowl, yes that is one creepy move, I can still feel her claws myself when I think about it!! I will try to find that clip.

@Heidi3, Sarah is always copying people, so I’m sure Loudon gave her ideas whether directly or indirectly.

@comeonpeople, the main thing that’s “off” in the photo is Sarah herself. I see her as just savoring pulling off her hoax and is splitting her gaze between the video and the still camera, taking it all in. She *looks* demented, frankly… when I first saw that photo, I knew deep in my being that something was wrong—wrong with Sarah.

@Everybody… did anyone ever consider that maybe they just did a wonky job laying the carpet? On top of that, camera lenses distort geometric perspectives; even our own eyes do. This just isn't a "Photoshopped" photo.

@Brad, if I sounded frustrated in the past, it’s also because I was impatient that folks “get up to speed”. I couldn’t be more thrilled that you and Laura seem to be hitting your stride here. These couple of posts have made me feel more hopeful than I have in a long time that this hoax will be more widely revealed.

I wonder what is up with Meg Stapleton these days, btw? Palin certainly did go shopping from amongst the Alaskan press, didn’t she?

Bree Palin

6/10/2011 01:16:11 am

Regarding the hair issue on the Gusty photos - IIRC back when these photos were so heavily discussed at Audrey's blog, people referred to the following photos from the same day - they were the photos used on the news website stories reporting on the end of the legislative session that day. I know there was much discussion about the necklace and other issues and trying to find any other photos of video from that day that showed more of Palin than just from the chest up. I don't have the original links and all the articles I can find now are now in archives with the photos stripped. I am sure they are discussed deep in Audrey's comments. It looks like Palin took a curling iron to her bangs and the ends of her hair that day - you 80's girls will know what I mean. My long-winded point is that supposedly these photos are from earlier in that last day of the session. Anyone remember this?

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x402/breepalinomg/1b.jpg

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x402/breepalinomg/1a.jpg

Lidia17

6/10/2011 01:19:28 am

Check out Gryphen's post relating to Laura's.

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2011/06/laura-novak-and-professor-scharlott.html

He's got the Gusty video linked, and in the key frame you can see she's got the same sort of look as in the still photo: glazed mania with a sautee of lightly-repressed glee on the side, served on a bed of "gotcha".

Or it could just be her wonky eye. ;-)

Gryphen adds:
"I can also reveal that I was able to track down a source with inside knowledge of what happened that day.

What I learned was that the cameraman with the rumpled shirt is named Scott Favorite. That Gusty brought the newly released book Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned the Political Establishment Upside Down, and got Sarah to sign it for her. And that Gusty was a BIG fan of the Governor, and treated her more like a celebrity than a local politician.

My source also said that the date, April 13, 2008, is accurate."

Roger

6/10/2011 01:42:21 am

The calendar is screwed up as it has channel 2 with Gusty, but Gusty worked at channel 11; Bill worked at channel 2. If you search for the 'Gusty photos' you can get the long version video of the live broadcast by Gusty including breakaways to weather, etc..
Also in the video is a shot of the camera tripod behind the light stand. SP during the interview looks to the right of the cameraman. Somebody was standing there.

The carpet is ok. The camera distorted straight lines closer to it. I remember doing many hours of analysis on these photos with higher resolution copies several years ago. The necklace was there, just blown out and not very contrasty against SP's neck.

Interesting that ADN.com has a video of SP from 2008 this morning showing SP with a similar suit jacket as the missing button/long one; different collar, but padded shoulders and rolled up sleeves. This could be the jacket in the office photo.

We need to keep things very simple. SP didn't plan things out that far in advance and didn't have the skills to figure out she'd need this photo or that hair style to fake something.

molly malone

6/10/2011 01:46:38 am

The only way you can get to Juneau is by plane or ferry; it's about the most illogically situated state capital you'll find anywhere(hence the need for a secondary office in Anchorage). Point being, that if the men were dressed in their Sunday finest, they weren't on their way to or from church.

Don't know if this matters at all. Just saying that no one in those photos casually hopped in a car and toodled on down the road from Anchorage to Juneau.

ginny

6/10/2011 02:06:51 am

silver said:
"Before this I've only seen the cropped pictures of Palin at the RGA in April. These ones have the full body shot except for her feet. This article is from Sept 08, 2008.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/pictures-show-palin-pregnant-a.html"

I've never seen that photo either! What really stands out in that pic to me is 1) how small/short she is compared to everyone else and 2) how SKINNY her legs look! Those pantlegs are very wide and loose. Neither her face or arms/legs have that swollen, late-pregnancy look that most women get, esp. in multiparas.

Allie

6/10/2011 02:22:54 am

@molly,

You mean the players wouldn't have been in Juneau that day before the session ended? I know Juneau isn't accessible by road/car. I know my American History. Sorry, couldn't resist. The media wouldn't spend the night? Wouldn't go to church? No churches in Juneau? How long is the flight between Juneau and Anchorage? A few minutes? I thought the end of the session was a planned event. There might be other explanations for there dress; I was just trying to think why they would be dressed up and in a hurry.

6/10/2011 02:26:29 am

Brad,
Even though lightening the Gusty photo doesn't show any more detail of the empathy belly, did you try lightening any screen shots from the video?

comeonpeople

6/10/2011 02:33:31 am

FWIW, i just got back from a media event for the Alex's Llemonade Stand week kick-off. All the major and minor news stations were there. I observed all the cameramen, all in cargo pants or cargo shorts and t-shirts. The reporters were all dressed up though.

factchecker49

6/10/2011 02:48:54 am

There is nothing mysterious about photogs and ties. The AK XGR has a dress code.

Some Alaska Judges also enforce dress codes in their courtrooms - meaning male photogs have to wear ties.

Carharts and safari vests are not optional in some settings

ginny

6/10/2011 02:49:29 am

elizabeth said:
"What has always bugged me the most about this whole thing is how anyone who asked legitimate questions was shut down immediately. And I'm talking progressive, democratic, liberal sites. It just blew my mind how quickly the questions was shut down on sites such as Kos and Mudflats."

I think that this came from the strong desire for Obama to win the election: I believe liberals/Democrats/progressives believed it was HIGHLY unlikely that a sitting governor faked a pregnancy and they feared that a "conspiracy theory" that got out of control and was subsequently blown to pieces would hurt Obama's chances by providing sympathy for Palin as well as distraction from the important issues. I kind of understand it, because at the time, who had any idea Palin would go on to become the national political figure that she has? Doesn't make it right but understandable.

Brad Scharlott said:
"Up: About the hair: I think the hair is down in these shots so that it could be artfully spread over the inside of her shoulders to obscure the otherwise visible inside ridges of the pregnancy belly. Almost no other pictures from this period show her hair down. In the Dallas shots from a few days later, her hair is up and you can make out the ridges, even though she was shot from a distance."

You CAN see the ridges under her clothes in that pic! Never noticed it before now!. Good catch! And that makes sense about the hair.

Lidia17, if Gryphen's source is believable, this supports my theory that Gusty was an unwilling pawn. We are all assuming the photo was taken with her camera, but we don't know that. What if Gusty merely wanted a signed book, and "someone else" suggested a "souvenir" photo to go with it? Maybe she thought she had the only copy because she never imagined why any of the others present would even want a copy for themselves? But if it was taken with Dan or Bill's camera, then of course they would have access to the digital version.

Lidia17

6/10/2011 03:07:43 am

Sarah grappling with Tri-G's head in the sling is here:
http://vimeo.com/2377614

Note how Piper has to come up on stage, too, so that she can be seen looking up adoringly at Sarah? So that Sarah doesn't feel alone? Boh.

Also, the link didn't come through for my YT for Phyllis. It's here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZSVMzeR5jU

Fritz Holznagel link

6/10/2011 03:26:32 am

Thanks for another interesting report.

One quibble: your item 6 in the "staged" section doesn't seem to make sense.

You suggest: "Carpenter was wearing a suit so that he could be in the second picture with McAllister and not seem out of place standing next to the governor in his normal scruffy work attire."

But if McAllister was clever and crafty enough to plan this shot, just in case it was needed months later, and he arranged the location and everything else... how could he miss such an obvious detail? He surely wouldn't pose a supposedly-working cameraman in such unusual clothes. Just the opposite, in fact.

Many of the other points are quite persuasive, but this one makes no sense to me at all.

Tada

6/10/2011 04:05:09 am

@Lidia17 Did Gusty claim/confirm that both of the above pictures were taken with her camera? And, if so, has she confirmed that the original pictures on the digital storage card match the pictures above? Or could it be that the digital storage card was not hers and that she only received the pictures after they could have been manipulated without her knowledge? The issue I have with the picture in the hallway is not the carpet. What appears strange to me is the following:
- the size of Palin compared to Gusty
- the appearance of Sarah's upper body vs lower body; did Palin Deceptions look into the possibility that Sarah's upper body may have been Photoshopped into the picture on top of her "slimmer self" in the original picture?
- the strange look of the floor and wall behind Sarah's lower back; or is there a corner right behind Sarah making the hallway wider?

I will read up on the finding at Palin Deceptions if the info is still there.

Brad Scharlott

6/10/2011 05:13:18 am

Fritz: Re your point about Carpenter in a suit. The idea that it makes no sense for carpenter to be in a suit is because McAllister never envisioned that he would be forced to explain why he and Carpenter were there at all. If he had foreseen the level of scrutiny that would come about, he NEVER would have allowed himself to be photographed with Palin - that turned out to be stupid (in retrospect) - from his perspective in April, he must have thought it was a long shot the photos would be needed at all. When the word went out in August to post them, he probably did not think through all of those details that might haunt him later.

Brad Scharlott

6/10/2011 05:14:31 am

JJ: Yes I did lighten a screenshot - sadly, it showed nothing new.

6/10/2011 05:34:57 am

If Bill McAllister set this up, it makes no sense at all that he'd have one more person there than was absolutely necessary. But maybe McAllister invited Carpenter to "go out for a drink after work". Asked Carpenter to meet at the state house because he "had to work late," enabling them to happen across Gusty and Palin just before the interview. That would give him an excuse to encourage Gusty to conduct the interview in that corner, and would give him an excuse to take the photos.

We've all commented on Sarah not looking at the camera. Sarah is looking at McAllister, smirking because she knows this photo will go out when God touches her and makes her the VP nominee, and Schmidt asks for a good photo of the pregnant governor.

I do have to hand it to McAllister, he was able to see further than his predecessor and/or was more pursuasive with Sarah. He knew it would be helpful to have a good photo of an unquestionably pregnant governor in hand.

Brad Scharlott

6/10/2011 05:41:42 am

Ginny - I totally agree that we don't know if it was Gusty's camera. The FactCheck report seemed to imply it was - and I'm guessing Gusty is to blame for that. Saying she thought she had the only copy of course led to that conclusion. She may have sensed that she should give out as little info as possible, even if she was a total pawn.

I did not know before reading in the comments that Carpenter was also from Bethel. But I can now envision a scenario where Andrea was a total pawn, and got sucked in because she admired Palin and maybe knew Dan from high school or whatever. So, maybe it was Dan's camera, and Dan sent the "Gusty picture" to Andrea, and told her she had the only copy because he erased the original. He of course then could have been Erik99559.

Andrea, if you are reading this, and I got it all wrong concerning your involvement, I'm sorry. I learned you just got married. I don't want all this to take away from your happiness at this special time in your life. In case it helps, you can trust Laura with anything - her sense of confidentiality is absolute. Maybe you should talk to her if those people took advantage of you.

Who Knows?

6/10/2011 05:46:33 am

What about somebody photoshopping Carpenter's face onto John Bitney's body. See the money quote about the tie that I mentioned previously.

6/10/2011 06:22:09 am

So Gusty hasn't answered Laura because she just got married.

McA had to know only of the rumors that Palin wasn't pregnant to see the value in having a pregnancy photo for future use. He didn't have to know the belly was fake.

Both may, but neither has to, be in on the hoax.

Laura Novak link

6/10/2011 06:30:19 am

Yes, but note that I tried to contact her long before she "got married." And in several ways. So I don't take that as a good excuse for not replying to me. Even if it was to say, "there's nothing to say."

ginny

6/10/2011 06:30:31 am

I still think it's in the realm of possibility that Andrea is still "in the dark" if she was used. But, after she saw that her picture was used to "prove" Palin's pregnancy, I would think the lightbulb went off for her. Details about why and how the picture was taken would shed new light.
1) Who suggested/asked for the photo originally?
2) Whose camera was used and what type of camera was it?
3) Who suggested/asked for the pic of the guys and Palin that Gusty took?
4) Whose camera/what type of camera was used for that picture?
5) When/how did Andrea receive her copy of the picture of her interviewing Palin?
6) Did Andrea also have a copy of the pic she took of the guys and Palin?

And finally, I JUST thought of this weirdness:

If you are a television news reporter, and you are interviewing the Governor (or ANY well-known personality) live on camera...
Why in the HELL would you even want a camera shot of the interview in progress? Couldn't you just take a good still from the video?
Am I missing something?

Brad Scharlott

6/10/2011 06:59:52 am

Ginny: Excellent point. If you are the reporter, you don't want a second camera off to the side distracting your subject. If you want a high-definition keepsake photo, you can get it after the interview, although a Laura said, that would be odd and unprofessional. If Gusty was kept totally in the dark, she must have at least wondered, "What the hell is going on here."

Roger

6/10/2011 07:01:36 am

ginny

We don't exactly when the photo was taken. It was a 'live' broadcast; they did a preview with Gutsy, then went back to the studio before coming back to Gusty. Was the photo taken before the live interview? During? We don't know for sure. Maybe this is why SP seems to be looking to the right of the camera?

FrostyAK

6/10/2011 07:04:30 am

"A longtime Alaskan journalist told me that there is an alarming cross-cultivation of reporters and government officials in Alaska."

Absolutely the case. It was not until the monstrosity known as $arah palin was nominated for Gov that I noticed this. They seem to go from news reporter, to appointments in the government, back to news. A nice cozy little secret society it seems. The government is AK is CORRUPT, and it would follow that many of the 'news' folks are the same.

As for Erika Bolstad (mentioned above), she is currently a talking head with KTUU. Sorry, I cannot give ANYone working for the "news" up here the label of reporter. Make that nearly nationwide anymore...

FrostyAK

6/10/2011 07:08:32 am

Another thing to look at in ALL discussions of AK politics is the church affiliations of those involved. Fundy churches are heavily involved in all levels of politics. Dominionism seems to be the religion of choice for an alarming number of politicians. And maybe people behind the news??

mumimor

6/10/2011 07:10:16 am

Hey!!!
Lidia17's link to the OneLord event is really important!
http://vimeo.com/2377614
(Excuse me for the exclamation marks, I'm trying to get your attention :-))
In the video, SP is carrying a baby who was supposed to be born mid-April. Now I can't really figure out exactly when this event happened, but it seems to be in June - or September.
Even if we calculate with the June date, Trig would be three months old at this event. Old enough to be in a lift or in the arms of a caring dad. He would also be old enough to move around, make noises, be affected by noises and of course: cry. Obviously, Downs' children are later in development, but as I understand it, a premature Downs' child would be smaller and less strong, but he would be as lively and noisy as any "normal" child.
The child SP is showing off is tiny, passive and ruddy, like a newborn. What on earth is going on here?
One thing is he may be drugged. But what's with the ruddiness, and anyway, what is the point of drugging your 3 month old special needs child and bringing him to an event where you are shouting into a microphone. It's really, truly crazy.
Now, I am totally confused. I have earlier looked for simple solutions. But this video really sets a different agenda.

mumimor

6/10/2011 07:16:23 am

Also, I stopped the vimeo-film, and than child doesn't look at all like neither Trig nor Ruffles.

Anon55

6/10/2011 07:23:56 am

@B "McA had to know only of the rumors that Palin wasn't pregnant to see the value in having a pregnancy photo for future use. He didn't have to know the belly was fake."

Sorry that doesn't work unless Palin was wearing her fake belly at all times in public, and we know that wasn't true. Do you think she strapped on the fake belly when she and McAllister were having their job interviews in April? No, I think not. So, McAllister was in on it unless he is totally blind, and to my knowledge, he's sighted.

I also don't give a pass to Gusty, the hotshot investigative reporter, for the same reason. I'd also like to know if the first time that Gusty saw Palin on the day of the interview was at 5:00 p.m., when they shot the interview. Did Gusty spend just fly in from Anchorage that afternoon to do the interview? Or was she already in Juneau and spent the day in bed eating Taco Crunch Wrap Supremes like her heroine? Or was she working all day like a real reporter in the legislative hall? And, if so, did she see Palin earlier in the day and did Palin look the same?

I think AnonForNow is correct and that Palin wasn't wearing her big belly all day. Maybe she did have on, at least, the square pillow though (which would have been much more comfortable than the 33 pound Empathy Belly).

Phyllis

6/10/2011 07:24:01 am

Here's a comment from the person on Free Republic.

To: TruthWillWin
Yeah, the date’s screwed up. I found this on the althouse thread. It’s at the end of the legistlative session though with a tv interview...

52 posted on Sun Aug 31 2008 23:01:03 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by bahblahbah
Link for bahblahbah post http://tinyurl.com/3vaaguq

The comment on Althouse;
P Bain said...
Don't look at these pictures because Sarah Palin is definitely not pregnant here. Let's not let reality get in the way of sick, base-minded partisan attacks!

8/31/08 9:42 PM
This is the link for the Althouse post... http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.htmlst

This is the link for the Townhall post http://tinyurl.com/5qlvnk
Comment by kat in your hat PUMA on August 31, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
Here’s another pregnancy pic for you.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30076181@N02/2814199887

Maggie

6/10/2011 07:45:28 am

Brad: concerning the identity of Erik99559 the following comments were posted to Palin’s Deceptions on Sunday, December 7, 2008.
- The guy on the left is Erik99559 himself, according to his Flickr page.
- From the photo caption on the Flicker page - Eric is the guy on the left, with Palin and McAllister.
- these are the only two photos on Flicker by erik - nothing else, only on August 31, 2008, and the photo caption says "myself".
- Dan E. Carpenter

Karen

6/10/2011 07:47:32 am

Until I read this post I did not realize the other man in the photo with then Gov. Palin was a cameraman.
I worked as a reporter for five years and interact with cameramen and newspaper photographers all the time. They Do Not Wear Suits. Unless it's a funeral. They just DON'T. Jeans, khakis perhaps if they're getting all gussied up. Not dress slacks. Not ties. Never suits.
It sounds like a really strange thing to pin this discussion on, but it is just so obvious that the person in the suit is not working as a cameraman on that particular day (unless he just left his grandmother's funeral).

Tada

6/10/2011 07:52:55 am

Trig as a prop...
On Apr 27, 2008, just nine days after the announcement of Trig's birth, Frank Bailey already had fantastic news for Sarah and Todd. In an e-mail forwarded from his wife he is reporting that "3 million listeners on this Christian Music network nationwide hearing about our Gov and family!". The e-mail message from Bailey's wife had the subject of "So I was driving" and the following message "on a country road in Western New York and listening to my favorite station-KLove...and they told me a story about the Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin and her new baby Trig...quoted her about Trig being a blessing from God...It was neat..."

Neat indeed!

Conscious at last

6/10/2011 08:10:03 am

@mumimor

In the past, there was some serious commentary at PG about that baby actually being a life-like doll. In a different video version of this event, we see SP sort of pinch the head of the baby as she turns so the audience can see him.

Lidia17

6/10/2011 08:12:19 am

Committing journamalism by random lot:

@shushwalshe: The first e mail I took out of the box. A poem sent to a group including the gov of Alaska. #palinemails http://j.mp/jpyPWq

Lidia17

6/10/2011 08:24:01 am

mumimor, I don't know the exact date of that event.

"what is the point of drugging your 3 month old special needs child and bringing him to an event where you are shouting into a microphone."

The point is that you need to drag him on stage to show your "pro-life" creds, whatever the cost. That's what a narcissist does.

What was the point of Bristol being interviewed by Matt Lauer with a catatonic-seeming child?

I don't know whose kid is in there, whether it is real kid… It's all creepy-fundie-psycho theatre.

BadlandsAK

6/10/2011 08:48:42 am

@mumimor & Lidia 17

!!! It always strikes me how Palin babies are like inanimate objects. During the Matt Lauer interview, Tripp looks unconscious and I swear there is a point where she looks a little panicked, like she's checking to make sure he's breathing. And always dragging babies on stage, passing them around. They never seem to fuss or even move around like a normal baby would. My own babies would be traumatized by all of the commotion. Bringing babies to work? Ummm, no way. Babies are messy and needy, and so is the post-partum body.

Roger

6/10/2011 09:05:22 am

SP's dedication of AK to God was June 8, 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ecbaymt1Q That's 7 weeks after the wild ride.

Mhurka

6/10/2011 10:02:24 am

O/T but there is a very interesting and disturbing article entitled "Sarah Palin Uses Email Dump to Release Critics Personal Information" at www.politicususa.com/en. Please check it out.

FrostyAK

6/10/2011 10:41:18 am

Thanks for the heads up on the email dump, Mhurka. I expect to be one of those getting hate mail from the flying monkeys.

Tada

6/10/2011 10:45:02 am

Ok, i went to Palin Deceptions and looked at the picture of Palin and Gusty in the hallway (same picture as above, but much better quality). After seeing the picture there, I no longer believe the picture is photoshopped.
Laura: Perhaps you may replace your picture with that picture? It is much better quality and bigger. The area behind Sarah Palin's back, which looks strange above, is clearly visible in the picture on Palin Deceptions and clearly shows the boxes on the floor.

Tada

6/10/2011 10:47:15 am

...continuing from my prior comment...
Also, in the picture, both Palin and Gusty are actually looking into the camera that the guy is holding. I know it does not look like that in the picture above, but whe you look at the picture on Palin Deceptions, you can see it. Just FYI.

Anon55

6/10/2011 11:00:56 am

@ Karen: "Until I read this post I did not realize the other man in the photo with then Gov. Palin was a cameraman.
I worked as a reporter for five years and interact with cameramen and newspaper photographers all the time. They Do Not Wear Suits. Unless it's a funeral. They just DON'T. Jeans, khakis perhaps if they're getting all gussied up. Not dress slacks. Not ties. Never suits."

Having been around the news business myself, that is my experience. However, a commenter above claims there is some kind of dress code for the Alaska legislature and the men, even cameramen, are required to wear suits and ties.

Anyone know if that could possibly be correct? Obviously, the super formal dress code doesn't apply to women, since Gusty is in flip flops.

comeonpeople

6/10/2011 11:21:39 am

@Badlands:
I don't know if drugging kids/babies is a common practice with fundies, but I do know from personal experience with catholic charismatics from growing up, that it was common practice. My parents had several charismatic friends who had kids in rapid succession. They would nyquil the kids on friday nights so they could have date night and make more kids. No qualms at all about doing it, in fact they stated they deserved the quiet time. They'd also have lobster and filet mignon after feeding the kids hotdogs and mac and cheese.
I am convinced Tripp was drugged on the Today show and perhaps Tri-G, (any of them, all of them) , at various times.

Tada

6/10/2011 12:30:03 pm

I've been reviewing Palin Deceptions and noticed the pictures in the older posts are no longer available. Does anyone know Audrey and can ask her to have the pictures restored? Is there a risk that the whole blog will be deleted due to inactivity?

Cracklin' Charlie

6/10/2011 03:24:07 pm

These photos are so weird. I still think $arah's face looks way, way fuller than it looks in any photos I have seen from Jan 08 through Apr 08. Just looks really different and more like she looked during the campaign. Could the Gusty still photo have been produced to provide backup to a waist-up video that REALLY was shot in Apr 08?

And this "spare" cameraman being there, WTH? His body language suggests someone in a photo with their frat brothers, not the Governor of Alaska. Hands in pockets, big cheesy grin, cocky pose, $arah turned towards Bill as though he scared her. A photo with a camerman on legislation day? (whatever, it's late), it's all just exceedingly weird.

There's just lots of weird stuff going on here.

LTA - You made a comment on this thread about $arah's suit. I saw a segment about $arah's emails tonite on Rachel Maddow show. I swear, I think that $arah is wearing a campaign suit to her "baby shower" that was held months before. I doubt if she owned that suit in Apr/May 08. I really don't know much about clothes and labels and such, but I can tell the difference between cheap and expensive clothes, and that outfit from the "shower" looks expensive.

I believe she is also wearing the same outfit on a People magazine cover with Toad, Trig, and John and Cindy McCain. Another weird photo.

In every picture of her that is prior to the campaign, $arah looks like she got her clothes out of the 'rag bag'. But at the "shower" she is dressed to kill. Weird.

Laura and Brad - I am really so glad that you are focusing heavily on this photo. It would seem to me that any faked or staged photo would call attention to itself, and it has certainly done so in this case. Another set of photos that have always particularly pushed my phony buttons are the "shower" photos.

Maybe you could take a closer, in-depth look at those photos, pretty please?

Lidia17

6/10/2011 10:12:31 pm

BfromC over at Politicalgates has found the e-mail setting up the Gusty interview. It seems to imply that 5pm was based on Gusty's availability rather than Palin's:

http://www.crivellawest.net/palinAll/pdf/13649.pdf

http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/06/five-four-three-two-one-its-whacky.html#comment-223612527

Lidia17

6/11/2011 12:51:49 am

Cracklin' Charlie, the "shower" wasn't a home-grown affair: like "Tripp's birthday" it was set up as a magazine shoot, and Sarah appeared on the cover(s), with the deformed-ear baby:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-gets-cover-of_n_123448.html

Whether she got SarahPAC, the Alaska Fund Trust, or the magazine to pay for that suit, you're right, it's not her usual garb. Undoubtedly the magazine's art director or photo stylist helped her with her look.

Brad Scharlott

6/11/2011 04:30:46 am

Lidia 17: Yup, that's exactly what the email purports to show - that the time of the interview was based on Gusty's needs, not the governor's. I'd like Laura to tell us if that passes the smell test for her.

What's the alternative explanation? That the whole point of shoot was to stage pictures to perpetuate a hoax - so placing the time of the shoot on Gusty is a deliberately deceptive way to make it NOT seem like a staged event. It shows the same careful planning behind the whole thing.

So, then, why would McAllister/Palin want 5 p,m.? I'm guessing just about everyone would have left the building by then - and they did not want witnesses for something that would look odd: the 5 participants in a box-strewn hallway trying to work out the best angles for the still shots, and then doing the interview in that hallway when just about anywhere else in the capitol building would make more sense esthetically.

But the timing truly makes no sense. A shoot at 5 p.m. ensures that the video would not be available for the early evening newscast. Palin's schedule was totally open except for the 2:45-3 press availability. Why not right after that?

And why exactly would Palin be giving an exclusive to one reporter in this situation anyway? Again, I'd like Laura to say if this passes the smell test.

The whole thing was a carefully planned operation, right down to that deceptive email.

Laura Novak link

6/11/2011 05:41:58 am

I think the timing does make sense in that they wanted a "live shot" for the 5pm news. That means literally "live." But that also means a satellite truck outside somewhere and lots of cable. That's at least one other person. And while they might have packaged some of it for later in the evening, live shots make news casts more dynamic which is why show producers like them.

Still doesn't explain to me the other two men in suits there. Just sayin'.

Brad Scharlott

6/11/2011 06:12:46 am

Ah, I missed the live part. I just watched the video again. Interesting that at the end she says the pictures are real but not that the pregnancy is real.

So, Laura, why an exclusive for KTKA? She had just hired McAllister of KTUU as her press secretary (he would not officially start till July, but we now know he had negotiated a contract in April) - and why that hallway with the boxes instead of her office? Does this make sense to you?

Laura Novak link

6/11/2011 07:27:18 am

You know, Brad, I don't know. It was the legislature, so that venue wasn't INappropriate at all. Had it been in her office, perhaps it would have been too much about her.

It's not uncommon to grab politicians in the hallway.
And again, I'm used to a much bigger TV market where many reporters, both print and broadcast, are looking for the talking head. Maybe they all got her earlier?

Were there only two competing stations? So again, why was Mr. McAllister there? And Carpenter as well.

Truly, if there was a simple explanation for this, why not just say so? Perhaps they enjoy this attention??

Brad Scharlott

6/11/2011 09:47:45 am

OK, so a hallway, even a cluttered one, is not so odd in itself as to suggest something fishy. But as the side-angle still picture makes clear, it was at the perfect spot for shots in two directions - particularly the shot of the big belly in profile.

So I still maintain that the precise location in that hallway must have been chosen to get that still shot of the interview in progress; in other words, the whole thing was staged.

But the 5 p.m. time now seems like it was keyed to doing a live broadcast. So I suppose that for whatever reason, Palin may have promised Gusty a live interview, and the question was, say, whether it would be Saturday or Sunday. In that case, the email about Gusty's availability makes sense and is innocuous.

Lidia17

6/11/2011 10:13:49 am

Laura & Brad, the interview request as forwarded to Sarah relays that there would be time for "two questions" only, which indicates to me that Gusty may have been authentically trying to (or appearing to try to) tailor something to a live broadcast, or at least a predefined evening segment slot. Right?

Whether the piece actually aired as such that evening needs to be determined, but its airing would not be conclusive one way or the other.

If Gusty were merely a Palin fangirl, McAllister could have used her… or…?

I kind of find it hard to believe, though, that a newswoman would 1.) bring a copy of a book to be autographed by Palin, and then 2.) help fake evidence for Palin's pregnancy. One or the other, but not both: one gesture is cynical, the other naive and besotted. (The only wild card in this is if Gusty were one of the fundie Dominionists backing Sarah; for that sort of person deception and hero worship would go hand-in-hand.)

Brad, KTVA not KTKA.

Laura, I think the AK scene must be so small——so incestuous on so many fronts—— that it is hard for us to judge what is "normal" behavior in any sphere. There are numerous other stations in AK, but the only ones I see cropping up repeatedly are KTUU and KTVA, it's true.

Brad Scharlott

6/11/2011 11:26:51 am

Lydia17 - good points.

So let's say McAllister set it all up. Gusty and her cameraman show up, and are told where the interview will happen, and "by the way, my friend Dan here wants to get a shot of the interview as it happens, and he'll send you a copy, Andrea."

Andrea the fangirl is just thrilled to get the scoop, so why question the setup? Then in late August the picture blazes across the internet, and Andrea knows she was set up.

FactCheck calls and she knows heavy hitters will destroy her if she gives too many details. She fudges the truth by saying she thought she had the only copy, thus giving the impression the camera was hers - which she may now rue. The young "researchers" from FactCheck sense she is uneasy and don't press her.

And Bill, still pulling all the strings, posts the pics to Flickr, but puts in that Bethel zip code to deflect attention from himself, thus really screwing Andrea and/or Dan. And now Andrea has to work that guy at KTVA.

It works for me.

TADA

6/11/2011 12:32:40 pm

The below e-mails are interesting when it comes to a possible cover-up by Palin and McAllister:

E-MAIL FROM IVY FRYE TO SP 06 APR 2008 1:31PM (Subject: Bristol):

"I was just on the phone with Don and he got a call from Chuck Sr. Reports from Juneau that lyda's office is perpetuating the Bristol being pregnant rumor. No doubt Janey and/or Portia. I'm calling them on the flippin carpet!"

E-MAIL FROM SP TO SHAREN LEIGHOW 06 Apr 2008 3:48PM (Subject: Fw:Bristol):

"Sounds like The Bristol rumor was started and continues via Lyda's office. (Namely, Portia Babcock - Lyda's COS, Tuckerman's sister (Tuckerman being Lyda's new son-in-law), former spouse of Kyle Parker (the oil/gas lobbyist busted for working with Ruedrich while at AOGCC), now girlfriend of Ralph Samuels...all those attributes all rolled into one Portia. Anyway, a former leg staffer heard the discussion at a rest. in Wasilla, evidently sitting near Lyda's people...she passed it on again today to folks at my sister's church...it's pretty pathetic. Bristol does want it squashed - we just don't know how to do so without making it a bigger issue. Can you feel out Wesley and McAllister to see if that's where they got the rumor, as others are saying it's Lyda's office. I figured it was them or Bitney."

E-MAIL FROM SP TO IVY FRYE 06 APR 2008 10:56PM (Subject: Re:Bristol):

"Flippin unbelievable. Wouldn't you think they'd be afraid of being proved wrong when they rumor around the building like that? I wonder if Wesley and McAllister did hear it from Lyda's office though... hopefully it'll be another reason why reporters and the public can't trust that odd group of strange people."

REPLY TO SP FROM IVY FRYE 06 APR 2008 11:16PM:

"We'll get it taken care of, don't worry. Diana Straub heard it and let Molly know today in church. I can guarantee Diana heard it from the horses mouth or the horses office-she and Janey are pretty friendly. When confronted lyda won't be able to do anything but apologize for her staff. How unbecoming and embarrassing for her office esp when press start inquiring..."

The above is e-mail record number 14098 if you search for the actual e-mail at msnbc / Crivella West.

Blade link

6/11/2011 01:05:10 pm

@lidia17 - Why do you think the shower was planned as a magazine photo shoot? This shower was reported to be held on May 4, 2008 which was well before she became nationally known. I can see a magazine doing a tiny blurb about a Governor who is almost completely unknown outside of her home state giving birth to a DS baby. But do a big spread and feature the unknown Gov. Palin on the cover? That seems strange to me.

Blade http://shesnohockeymom.blogspot.com/

BfromC

6/11/2011 04:06:29 pm

Brad -- if Bill didn't post it, then perhaps Dan E. (middle name maybe Erik?)posted it for him after some kind of conversation with Bill, following Palin being announced by McCain. Palin was about to throw Bristol under the bus and Bill remembered that photo for further proof. If he didn't know anything about the faked pregnancy back in April, he surely found out after working for Sarah a few months. I understand that Dan is from Bethel, too. So that was his zip code, as well. And now he is off in Mexico? Interesting.

Another thing that occurred immediately after Sarah was announced -- the Alaska website was swept, changed around, photos taken off, things disappeared. When Bristol's pregnancy was announced and Levi's name was leaked, I was one of the people who found Mercede's MySpace page that night and had a chance to look at all the photos, trying to figure out who Levi was. I had opened each of her photo pages and looked at them. I left them all open and a few hours later when I went back to my computer, her pages had been set to private. I still had all the pages open, but I could not longer click on any links to find the comments on her page. I saved the pages and later shared them with Audrey at PD.

I'm not sure of the timing for when strange people went knocking on the Johnston's door and a short time later Mercede discovered that her computer had been wiped clean. But I don't think it was too long after Levi's name was released and they headed to the Republican Convention.

Now who do you suppose was orchestrating the changes on the state website? I found Mudflats and other Alaskan blogs around this same time, and one of the hottest topics in the comments was about how so many photos had been scrubbed from the state website and elsewhere.

Surely McAllister had a big hand in all of that activity. His duty was to immediately reshape Palin's image into something vice presidential. There had not been any vetting, and he had his work cut out for him. A phone call to his cameraman buddy Erik to quietly get that pregnant photo up online would be any easy thing to do.

He knows he is deep into all of this shit, it has troubled him immensely, and that is why he went wacko on you.

mistah charley, ph.d.

6/11/2011 10:00:45 pm

Brad and Laura, I think this discussion has made undeniably explicit something important about Bill McAllister - that he has been and continues to be a crucial player in the cover-up phase of the Babygate Hoax. We have some examples of behavior I would call both nasty and fundamentally (fundamentalistically?) dishonest - his reaction to Brad's paper in the last few months, his refusal this week to be forthcoming in ANY way with Laura, his interaction with PETA in December 2008 about the "snowball fight" video game. And we know that SOMEONE present at the Gusty video interview arranged for the mysterious emergence of the Sarah "empathy belly" photo at the time it was needed to wipe out the Babygate discussion at Daily Kos. Who else had both opportunity and motive, and has demonstrated the devious dishonesty needed? It looks pretty clear from here.

Bob

6/11/2011 10:09:06 pm

In Frank Bailey's book, page 211, he quotes an email from Sarah on April 1, 2008 (April Fools Day it turns out) lamenting the rumor that Bristol is pregnant and Sarah is not, and telling Frank she is going to "nicely pull" Bill McAllister [of KTUU then] aside and tell him it's not true.

So makes me wonder if it was then that McAllister came up with this idea. Still, it is troubling to me that the side shot was withheld when the rumors were already rife. And the more people who are "in" on a hoax, the less likely it is to succeed.

6/12/2011 01:10:49 am

I think the shower was real, thrown by Sarah's friend at her real estate office. Not surprising. Pictures were taken. The realtor posted some on her site. When a magazine needed pictures later, a shower picture was used. Not surprising.

The baby's ear and his size compared to the mid-April photos are surprising. No one asks about the possible ear repair. No one even asks where beloved baby Trig is now. Alaska? Arizona? Home alone? Her beloved child, or prop when useful?

Brad Scharlott

6/12/2011 02:27:33 am

Bob - I'm guessing the big empathy belly was used quite sparingly - to many people in Alaska would have noticed that difference from one day to next. It contradicted her oft repeated claim that she "never got big."

So the idea was it would be used later, if needed, to shut down rumors at the national level - and there was a calculation that, being shown later, people in Alaska would forget - or at least not mention - how un-fat she was most of the time.

Lidia17

6/12/2011 08:21:58 am

@Blade, Sarah was being bruited about for a potential Republican VP slot **well** before her announcement of being PG with “Tri-G”.

She announced her “pregnancy” the day after McCain’s clinching of the R candidate nomination.

If you will notice, one of the magazines had a split run, using an alternate cover with the Obamas. This is marketing. It’s not casual and someone is behind it. Palin was certainly more intriguing and photogenic than McCain.

@BfromC, we have you to thank for the photos of “Ruffles”!!?? Bravo (or Brava!)! My hat’s off to you for such quick thinking…

FEDUP!!!

6/13/2011 05:13:36 am

First off: I have not read any answers beyond the very first one, so if anyone has addressed this issue, please forgive me for the duplicity!

IMHO, the pics show that she/they were actually scheming already at that time about the VP position. Also, too, there were some VERY thorough people involved in this whole scheming as documented in the most thorough vetting of her emails that were released last week. I read somewhere that people never had seen such a thorough deleting - usually there would be some info blocked out in one email, but in another one there would be at least a hint of the redacted subject. Not so in this instance. THEY WERE REAL PROFESSIONALS who redacted the emails, and IMHO, they were real professionals who swiped the computer in the Johnston's house, and they were real professionals who staged these couple of pics. I agree with the first poster - if they had taken a full-body shot in the interview for the 5pm news, people would have noticed her huge belly and said WTF?. But, because they did NOT show her at that time, in August, 4-5 months after these pics were taken, memories were a bit blurry and people maybe wondered a bit, but kept their thoughts to themselves - thinking that their eyes and their memories were lying. :/

FEDUP!!!

6/13/2011 06:26:02 am

Yellowgirl

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:36:49

Re the carpet: not only the thigh area on SP, but check out the right foot of SP. There is a "dot" there (first one in the foreground) that does NOT line up! I'm not talking about putting in lines and measuring dots.... just look at SP's right foot, her heel almost touching on a white "dot" on the carpet that SHOULD NOT BE THERE!

<B>YOU HIT THE PROVERBIAL NAIL ON THE HEAD, YELLOWGIRL!!! THAT SPOT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE!!!!!</B>

Blade link

6/13/2011 01:02:13 pm

@lidia - I am well-versed on Sarah Palin but the fact remains that nothing had been decided re: the VP nomination at the time the shower was held. I don't think the shower was even a real shower, fwiw and I did a post on my blog about that. I think that a fake shower was arranged for show, KC took some pics and the mags purchased them later when SP got the nod.

Roger

6/15/2011 11:43:04 am

@Yellowgirl - the carpet is exactly the way it should be; SP was not placed on it using Photoshop or any other program. There are two blue stripes between each row of dots. SP is blocking your view of one row of dots. That's all there is to this. Otherwise there would be a big gap between the rows. There is nothing wrong with the photo except for the belly.

Michele Newton

9/18/2011 07:42:56 pm

Whew! Amazing...

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

The Gusty Photo: A Conversation with Prof. Brad Scharlott

Leave a Reply.

Laura Novak

Blogs I Read

Categories

Archives