The Neonatologist: Ear, Nose, and Upper Lip

6/6/2011

In my last conversation with the neonatologist, we learned why it is possible, through specific calculations, to medically question the age of the baby presented as Trig Palin, 12-hours old. And for what it’s worth, three other doctors independently told me they agreed with the assessment that the “newborn” was actually days, if not weeks or months older.

But the photo of Trig Palin in the family’s kitchen, weeks later, on May 3rd, troubles many readers, also because of his size. The baby, held by Mercede Johnston, appears smaller than the Trig held by Sarah Palin’s mother on April 18, 2008.

And of course, there is the ear. But for the uninitiated who don’t know the entire story, let’s just begin with size and coloring.

LN: Doc, do you think this baby on the right can be the same as on the left, only a few weeks older?

DOC: Objectively, these two pictures pose a problem, I have no way to measure the babies, no single point of reference like the ICD (inter-canthal distance) of an adult or something else of known length. Both babies also have a similar face structure: Both have down-turned lips and a flattened nasal bridge typical of Down syndrome.

The 12-hour-old picture shows very little of him other than his face and not even his ears. He is wearing a standard-issue hospital hat and as I mentioned before, he looks chubby and pale which is not consistent with a typical premature newborn. The picture with Mercede shows a baby who very well could have been a preemie, much less chubby and somewhat ruddy. Of course, babies generally lose weight after birth and this is especially if they are poor feeders which is common with Down syndrome. My opinion is that the baby on the right is younger than the one on the left. As for them being different babies, I can’t really conclude anything.

LN: He’s also unwrapped. That could account for some of the disconnect here.

DOC: Sure, you can see more of the baby on the right. His leg position suggests hypotonia, also consistent with Down’s syndrome. My opinion still is that they could be the same baby, but the one on the right looks younger.

LN: I think a lot of people have speculated the same thing. The baby on the right does look younger. But how can that be? That photo was supposedly taken on May 3rd, for Levi’s birthday.

DOC: The only other possible explanation is that Down syndrome babies can be poor feeders, so it’s possible the May 3rd picture shows a baby who is calorically deficient. However, he’d probably have a feeding tube if that was the case.

LN: People have said they don’t believe the baby in Sadie’s arms has Down syndrome. I have always thought it appears to have the features. Here is another comparison with Trig, presented by his parents at reportedly 3-days old, and Trig, at the baby shower a few weeks later:

DOC: They both almost certainly have Downs. The epicanthal folds, the down turned mouth, recessed nasal bridge and broad forehead. The nose is not upturned.

While we’re on this picture, look at the lips. Notice that the baby on the left has less rosy lips (either pale or dusky, hard to tell from the picture) than the one on the right. Generally, babies become less ruddy over time, so unless there was an issue with oxygenation (congenital heart disease) the baby on the right looks younger. Also look at the hands. A newborn will have wrinkled hands from the amniotic fluid. An older baby’s hand will have smoother, more full looking hands. The hands on the baby on the left, though blurry, seem to be more full than the ones on the right.

LN: I thought the same thing but purposely didn’t point it out to you. His skin is more veinous too, on the right. And the eyelids more red. Could it be a rash? It’s almost as if there’s a blue mask around his nose and mouth area.

DOC: Yes, the baby on the right does look a little cyanotic (blue) but don’t think there’s any rash over the eyelids. Both findings go along with a higher red blood cell count, usually seen in a younger baby.

LN: Another possible diagnosis readers have raised is Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or FAS. What is your response to that?

DOC: FAS kids often (but not always) have a distinctive appearance, but there are differences from Down’s. I’m not sure why anyone thinks of FAS in this case and I certainly don’t want to speculate on Bristol’s drinking habits. Sure the babies both have flat nasal bridges and epicanthal folds, but they don’t have a smooth philtrum or a thin upper lip. Look at this diagram with common facial features of FAS from this excellent AAFP article.

LN: But you think they both look like they have Downs?

DOC: Yes. I think most people can make the diagnosis of Down syndrome without the need to go to medical school. When a baby is born with Down’s syndrome, not prenatally diagnosed, the parents (and all the staff) usually come up with diagnosis themselves rather quickly in the delivery room.

LN: You mentioned the “ear.” Perhaps nothing rocked the Palin-watching blogosphere quite like Gryphen’s Tale of Two Babiespost in February of last year.

His discovery of Trig as a newborn with a deformed ear was stunning. I believe this is a tight shot from this photo at the baby shower (same occasion as the right hand photo above.)

And as Gryphen pointed out, the deformed ear is also visible close-up on the Sadie-in-the-kitchen photo.

But the discovery but it led to further speculation that the infant with a cauliflower ear could not possibly be the same baby presented to the world at the Republican National Convention and then later at the presidential debate.

In fact, following that amazing post, the Internet began collectively calling the baby, Ruffles. What’s your initial response?

DOC: I'm not sure what I can add to that excellent Gryphen post other than agree with the general principle that the “ruffled ear” is unlikely to ever look normal.

At first glance, I thought the hole in front of the ear was a preauricular pit which occurs in up to 1% of newborns. It's not particularly associated with Down syndrome and usually doesn't cause any serious problems, besides getting infected.

But then I looked at a close-up of the ear and thought that the hole in front of the ear may actually be the ear canal itself, because it's way too big to be a preauricular pit, which are tiny. What I don’t see is any evidence of a “tragus”. That’s the piece of cartilage that sits in front of the ear canal opening, partially covering it.

I think the ears on baby #1 look a lot like this picture (without the abnormal opening)

LN: I know that you and I both want to delve further into this, but for now, you agree with the assessment of the doctors Gryphen interviewed?

DOC: Yes. There's no way that these small, low set, posteriorly rotated and deformed ears in picture #1 could look relatively normal several months later. But I’m not an ENT and I’d really like to hear what one would say before I’d definitively call these different babies.

LN: For what it’s worth I ran this same series of photos by another doctor. This was his response:

Photo #1 (THE CLOSE SHOT OF RUFFLED EAR) is an ear with a deformity that I have never seen. Not only is the cartilage misshapen, but the shadow in front of the ear makes it appear that there is a second abnormality.

On the three photos, from the left: the first one looks like the same photo as #1. The last 2 show the bottom of the ear lobe for the first time, so I can't compare that. The upper portion is very different, and appears to be of a different baby, not just an older baby. I would want to know what kind of plastic surgery can be performed on a deformed ear before I would call it a different baby.

LN: The same reader who has provided me with some of these composites, also made this one:

These are a chronology of Trig's ears. She also provided some interesting photos from Frank Bailey’s book that show the deformed ear, but I wasn’t keen on using those for copyright purposes. You had a brief thought about these?

DOC: Just that the pinnae looks too “normal” in the three pictures on the right. Those three could be the same ear, but not the original “ruffled” ear. That one’s got to be different.

LN: And then there is this composite:

DOC: The only really interesting thing here is that both Sarah and the baby have what looks like two ridges (concha) in the middle of the pinna. It doesn’t look like Bristol has that. Otherwise the ear of the baby is typical of Down syndrome, low set and posteriorly rotated. The helix is abnormal, but not as abnormal as “ruffles”.

LN: What I find so glaring about this set of photos is how similar Bristol and Trig’s ears are in terms of having a “bat wing” shape to them. Can these sorts of things be inherited?

DOC: I don't think anyone knows how ear shape is inherited. It's one of those things that is too complicated and not important enough to study. Many traits, however, can skip generations. They tend to be recessive traits. It looked like Sarah and Trig both had two anti-helices and two conchae. Bristol only had one.

Thank you again, Doc. I know we left some questions on the table, but I am working on finding out some more information on these ears from other pediatric specialists. Because I know readers have more questions about it.

DOC: I’d love to hear an ENT doc’s opinion on this. I also have one more question about that excellent Gryphen post. Why in the hell is Levi Johnson holding Trig if he's not the father? Would you let your daughter's boyfriend hold your baby? Or, put another way, why would your daughter's boyfriend want to hold your baby?

LN: Ah, therein lies the rub. Sometimes in life there are some things that are never fully explained.

LN: Mr. McCain? Mr. Schmidt? Ms. Wallace? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Thank you again, Dr. Neonatologist, for all your time and energy. And H/T to the amazing commenter who put these photos together. Thank you!

344 Comments

mistah charley, ph.d.

6/6/2011 02:00:02

DOC:"...I certainly don’t want to speculate on Bristol’s drinking habits."

OBJECTION - PRESUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE

viola

6/6/2011 02:14:45

Excellent! Thank you Laura and Doc for laying out the Ruffles controversy so clearly. So to repeat a bit of what I commented on the earlier post. . .

The TriggyBear photos do not lie. There is a truth in them that has not been explained. Those are happy, engaged people holding a beloved baby. As I said before, in those photos is a Bristol face we have not seen since.

mistah charley, ph.d.

6/6/2011 02:15:45

To be a bit more specific about my previous comment - the doc seems to be presuming that the baby or babies known as Trig was the child of Bristol. This is plausible under several scenarios for the Story of Trig - but has it been ESTABLISHED by a preponderance of the evidence?

padoreva

6/6/2011 02:22:29

They thought if they dressed Bristol in a dark color that no one would notice that she had several bath towels wadded up on her chest to absorb leaks.

Excellent analysis. Truly why would Levi be holding the baby, or wearing a "parental" bracelet in the hospital photograph? Obviously he is, or was led to believe that he is Trig's father.

We've had so many trolls derail us from logical conclusions in the last couple of years. What appears unequivocal is that Bristol looks postpartum at the RNC and Levi behaves in a parental way in the photos. What teenage boy would lovingly hold his girlfriend's mom's baby?

Melly

6/6/2011 02:26:04

Frustrating. No answers, more confusion. All I take away is what I believed before. The baby presented early on is not the same baby presented after Palin went national. Also, too, that this spawn of the devil is capable of lies so big that no normal human can comprehend them.

Melly

6/6/2011 02:29:23

Padoreva, I've always heard about the hospital bracelet on Levi but have never seen it. Do you see it in one of the pix posted here? Pls point it out.

padoreva

6/6/2011 02:49:32

No that photo is not here and I'm sure someone who pays more attention has a link. Please?

I've heard they only give those out to the father of the baby, certainly not the boyfriend of the birthing mother's daughter.

viola

6/6/2011 03:03:16

To those who know the time-line better than I: is it possible that Triggybear/Ruffles was born in Feb and that the Myspace photos are from that time? Was there every anything to date those photos conclusively? At what occasion were the other Ruffles photos taken?

And that the next newborn- Trig- was unveiled and photographed in April?

(And that between the two babies, SP hatched her plan to hoax a pregnancy. . .that Ruffles was never part of the lie. He inspired the hoax.)

Melly

6/6/2011 03:15:52

According to Mercede, the Ruffles-in- Palin's-kitchen photos were taken on the occasion of Levi's birthday, early may 2008.

Others have suggested that it might actually have been on Palin's birthday in March 2008 (this in response to 4:32's assertion that Trig was born in Feb 2008).

Susan

6/6/2011 04:01:14

As I remember, Bristol's pregnancy had not yet been announced when she appeared in that ridiculous tight dress. Her handlers WAY overpadded her breasts to make her abdomen look smaller and thus disguise the pregnancy. She also carried Trig with the blanket strategically placed over her abdomen, that is, until the sharp-eyed bloggers exposed the pregnancy. Another lie by the McCain campaign to attempt to hide the pregnancy and protect Sarah. Yes, Sarah. Do you think anyone in the campaign was concerned about Bristol - including her parents?

AFM

6/6/2011 04:02:11

Such an interesting post about the baby. Why isn't impossible that this baby is Bristol's? She could of had sex sooner than she should have after the baby was born. She might have thought like allot of girls she couldn't get pg so soon. Now looking at the last picture it really makes me wonder if momma Palin had left this couple alone they may of had a chance but now I feel bad for the babies. Not only does Palin hurt her family but she manages to payback anyone who doesn't agree with her. That is sad because the truth will always come out in the end. When it does her so called Northern Star will dim. I can't wait.

Lilybart

6/6/2011 04:06:20

Another odd thing about the photo where Levi is holding Trig.....Mercede not only has her arm around them both but her hand is resting on his...very proprietary, looks like she is encompassing her new family.

K.M.R

6/6/2011 04:28:55

It IS possible to have twins, each with Down syndrome (check with google as I did years ago). The percentage is low but it can happen, either identical or fraternal twins.
My question then to the doctor would be, do you think, judging from the pictures you have seen, that the babies in these pictures, albeit at different ages, could be twins; one with a deformed ear and one without the same abnormality?

There was a picture which I'm going to try to locate, of Levi holding one baby in his lap. In that same picture there is portion of an arm, of another baby protruding into the picture from just above the wrist.

I'm leaning towards thinking that whomever gave birth to these babies may have had twins, one we have come to call Ruffles (a terrible name) and the other Trig.
I will add that little Ruffles could well have been a female. She has a much more delicate look.

Anon55

6/6/2011 04:36:38

I remember that Mercede told this story on her blog or in an interview with Gryphen that sounded like total BS to me.

If I remember correctly, she said that she and Levi were lovingly cuddling Trig because they both just love babies, have lots of little cousins or some such other thing that sounded phoney in the extreme.

Therese Fenwick

6/6/2011 04:37:53

Jewels - I don't see the resemblance between Bristol and Levi in the pictures, but there is a resemblance between Levi and Todd, when Todd was much younger, if the picture of a very young Todd at these links are, in fact, Todd. http://seekertunes.com/blogs/personalities/todd-palin/

and

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/sarah_palin_vs_bambi_palin_win.html)

Floyd M. Orr link

6/6/2011 04:39:49

Excellent post, Laura! Most of what was said by the doctor has been my leading theory for a long time. The only question I have is about the FAS. How likely is it that Ruffles has/had it instead of DS? Would one more than the other have likely caused his demise? Some have speculated that Ruffles may be a girl. Can you ask the doctor about this likelihood? I have seen plenty of photos of these teens drinking liquor, smoking weed, and possibly doing harder drugs. These are some that were yanked off the net quickly back in September 2008. My opinion of the FAS is that I agree that the characteristics are not nearly as obvious as those of Downs, but unless FAS was involved, what was the motive for the scam? Some of the newer readers might not realize that some of these photos are among the ones yanked off the net with the ones mentioned above.

Another issue you may wish to pursue is that Palin took a baby, probably Ruffles, to three events, not one, on the weekend of May 3-4, 2008. There are several references to these events, but few photos outside the baby shower of 5/4/08. (You can read the details in the timeline and elsewhere in you know where.) It is difficult to imagine, but this baby was taken among two large crowds of people, and Piper was noted as holding him at one point while SP gave a speech.

Deb

6/6/2011 04:39:58

The Republican National Convention was held on September 1-4. If Bristol had Trig in March, she would be 4 months postpartum in the photo, not pregnant. Given the size of her breasts, postpartum would be my guess.

Could Trig and Tripp be brothers?

Mhurka

6/6/2011 04:47:19

In the May 3rd photo Trig seems shorter than in the April 18th photo. Babies can lose weight but can they also lose length?

Karen

6/6/2011 05:03:55

I can't help but mention that this could all be solved, this could all go away, we could all stop speculating on earlobes and leaking breasts and family ties and baby size if the quitter would JUST RELEASE some proof. Sarah, if you are reading, you realize that you have the power to make this go away, right? Doesn't your daughter, your grandchild/grandchildren, your son or sons, the baby daddy of your grandson or grandsons, your father ... deserve to have this speculation stop? You claimed on Hannity that "I don't think there's anything private in our family now." If you stopped the lie, they could have their privacy back.

alexis

6/6/2011 05:05:00

Wow another great post!!

@padoreva
Link to levi with hospital braclet on

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2010/11/mercedes-blog.html

Conscious at last

6/6/2011 05:15:19

I haven't had time to read all comments here yet....but I wonder if:

Is it possible the the Triggybear photos were from an earlier date than stated? Wouldn't this make more sense if they were actually taken in February or early March '08?

More_Cowbell

6/6/2011 05:27:13

"OBJECTION - PRESUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE"

Overruled. Bristol's "drinking habits" are her pattern of drinking-- if she never drank at ALL that would still be her "habit," not to drink.

K.M.R

6/6/2011 05:29:07

Okay, I found the picture; the one with another little baby arm sticking into the photo, as I mentioned above.
It's here at an old Palingates post from Wed. Sept. 2, 2009. (the fourth picture in).
Do you think there could have been twins born? Both little arms look about the same size to me.
http://tinyurl.com/3pt6ax5

LTA

6/6/2011 05:32:46

I never fail to think this when I see the side profile pic of Bristol at the RNC-- it HAD to be SP's idea to stuff her and the back of a sofa into that dress. I mean how ridiculous can you get?

Especially when you look at the "tarmac photos" where families McCain & Palin met. IIRC, Bristol was maybe a little poochy in the tummy but her bust appeared...not mutant-like, as it did the next day.

I'm not sure if I haven't read carefully enough (am at work & was sneaking reads of new post) or if it was not specifically said, but are Laura and or Doc saying "I think there were two babies"?

A point regarding Mercede Johnston and her place in all this- she is putting through downright threatening comments on her blog, as well as comments about 4:32 saying it's impossible for Mercedes' version of Tripp's birth story or birth to be accurate. But she is not ANSWERING any of the questions. If she was going to ignore the issue, why put through very accusatory/specific comments? And one other possibly relevant detail- as Floyd points out, Ruffles was very feminine. And Mercede said in her post that Levi only has "one beautiful son, Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston".

But what if he had a beautiful son...AND a beautiful daughter?

lilly lily

6/6/2011 05:36:42

Didn't Mercede at one point say the second arm was of a baby relation they brought along that day?

Which struck me as ridiculous at the time, but I never posted to Mercedes blog, which as far as I was concerned was a plea for funds for herself rather than trying to truly clear up matters.

I did skim through some of her answers.

Phyllis

6/6/2011 05:48:17

Here's the answer Sadie gave on her Nov.19 2010 blog post.

1) Respectfully, what’s with the photo where Levi is holding a baby and there is another baby’s arm cut out of the photo?

That photo is a picture I took of my brother holding his son with our young cousin on his lap. I cropped out our cousin because I did not have permission to post a picture of her online.

lilly lily

6/6/2011 05:50:23

Business Insider has posted the way any professional with inside information about these issues can send information to that site without being identified.

He is taking this to the next level.

Sooner or later, it will break.

daisydem

6/6/2011 05:55:15

I have not read all the comments, but had to scroll down and address viola's remarks: that is so sad. Your comments made me tear up. Bristol is just not the same girl (young woman) we saw at the RNC is she? You are so right on. That is a face we have not see since. Wow.

daisydem

6/6/2011 05:59:02

ETA, that is very good, at least to speculate on. I think maybe only once or twice on the various blogs has it been suggested that one of the babies (the one in the Triggybear photos or baby shower photos?) could have been a girl. Very dainty, not just small.

Suelu

6/6/2011 06:01:53

There is more than one Susan posting comments here. For clarity sake I will discontinue using the name replacing it with Suelu.

I also had a visceral reaction to the use of the term Sheesh by one of our posters. It resonates as being very Palinesque with me. Clearly, there are attempts in the some of the comments posted to divert and derail the progress of this discussion.

6/6/2011 06:02:27

@Susan. Bristol's pregnancy was announced before the convention, before she appeared in the tight gray dress.

The Palin family didn't have suitable clothing. The McCain campaign purchased some. The gray dress does look like it could have been a non-maternity dress borrowed from Meghan McCain. She wore dresses like that.

My opinion of the sofa bolster bustline is still that Bristol was 4 rather than 5 months pregnant and Sarah had her wear the fake boobs & belly device to look more pregnant than she was. Bristol's flesh was pushed up and out by that.

Brad Scharlott

6/6/2011 06:07:34

So let me get this straight - the two babies pictured side by side could be the same, but only if we assume the one on the right is younger, and hence that the picture was not taken in May, but before April 18, say in March. So, if there was a cake in the background in a related photo of "younger" Trig, who had a birthday in March or thereabout?

6/6/2011 06:07:45

Why does anyone think the picture of Levi with the hospital bracelet is not with Tripp, as Sadie said?

The baby looks like Tripp, not Trig, and Levi is wearing that ring on his thumb that was mentioned in the Esquire article from early Dec. 2008, not 2007.

Can anyone tell me why?

viola

6/6/2011 06:07:59

@daisydem. I know that a woman's intuition is not considered "proof" or "truth" by some, but mine has been more right than wrong in my life. Thanks for speaking up regarding Bristol's happiness in the triggybear photos. It is so vivid to me.

What if Ruffles were the union of incest-- but a different form. If Levi were Todd's son and Bristol were the mom? Or if Sherry were Chuck's daughter, and Levi and Bristol were first cousins. Suppose they didn't know it. Suppose the kids were told the truth and Ruffles was gotten rid of or died, because of the unsavoriness of his background. Imagine trying to keep that kind of AK gossip under wraps in the national arena. Suppose as "consolation" Sarah promised to adopt a DS baby to replace Ruffles-- and then surprised everyone with the hoax. ooooo! Look at me! I'm the pregnant one now! Then Bristol and Levi defy them all . . .

Something like this satisfies the commenters' warnings that the story is sordid and sad. That Bristol and Levi were hosed by their elders. But it also satisfies SP's steamrollering on her own behalf.

Just guessin' . . .

viola

6/6/2011 06:11:54

Sarah Palin's birthday is February 11.

Molly

6/6/2011 06:12:09

Fabulous post Laura. Confirms my suspicions. The Johnstons know full well what has happened. The baby they were holding was born long before April 18th, 2008.

Can I ask you a question? When did you become interested in this story.

padoreva

6/6/2011 06:17:55

Therese Fenwick, that photo of the youthful Todd does look just like Levi. And Jewels, I agree. Levi and Bristol look like they could be brother and sister--same nose and mouth. And thank you Alexis for the photo of Levi with the hospital bracelet.

I know I'm going to ruffle some feathers (pun intended), but I think that it is likely that Todd fathered both Levi and Bristol.

From what we've heard about the current Alaskan generation doing drugs and swapping partners, why not their parents' generation too? Those winter nights are long and there's not much for young people to do when it's so cold outside.

When siblings or half-siblings combine DNA, chances of birth defects (ruffles, Tri-g) rise precipitously.

We had heard about Todd threatening Levi with a gun. Also Sherry's drug bust and heavy sentence looks like a warning to the Johnston family not to spill the beans. The recent post on Mercede's blog threatens her not to disclose family secrets. And I seem to remember Gryphen saying some time ago that we'd feel sorry for Sarah if we knew the truth about Trig. I get the feeling that quite a few people are covering up something shameful.

Incest has been discussed in this blog, but what if the relationship between Levi and Bristol was an incestuous one that they were unaware of, until a child was conceived?

Molly

6/6/2011 06:19:39

@viola......I hadn't thought of that. It wouldn't surprise me.

Anon55

6/6/2011 06:42:28

Here's what Mercede said on her blog about Levi being at the hospital when Trig was born: "Levi was at the hospital because it was an emotional event, his girlfriend was meeting her new baby brother for the first time, and she wanted him to be a part of that special, life changing moment."

http://mercedejohnston.blogspot.com/

And here's Mercede on the ear: "I also never noticed anything wrong, different, or odd about Trigs ears when I saw him."

http://mercedejohnston.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-11-19T20%3A00%3A00-09%3A00&max-results=5

And then we have this: "I do know that there is no way that Trig is Bristol’s son. Bristol was with my brother during that whole time and Levi would never hide something like that from me.

I was also around Bristol once in awhile at that time and she did not have a baby belly whatsoever.

There is NO WAY that Trig is Bristol’s son. To my knowledge she has had one beautiful son, and that is my precious nephew Tripp Johnston."

http://mercedejohnston.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-11-19T20%3A00%3A00-09%3A00&max-results=5

And then we have her explaining why she is cuddling Triggybear:

"Days later we were invited to the Palins house in early May (Levi’s birthday) to meet the sweet newborn baby Trig.

I was anxious to meet Trig for a number of reasons. The first being that I knew I had a niece or nephew on the way soon and I wanted to be around babies to get an idea of how it would feel to be an aunt. I hadn’t had much baby experience at that point.

I was also very excited to meet Trig because I was convinced that my brother and Bristol were going to get married and start a family pretty soon so I considered the Palins a part of the family already."

http://mercedejohnston.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-11-19T20%3A00%3A00-09%3A00&max-results=5

So, according to Mercede, nothing to see here, move along. I don't know why, but it reminds me of John Edwards saying there is no way the kid could be his.

K.M.R

6/6/2011 06:48:35

True, Mercede did say that the arm of the other baby was cropped off the photo because she wouldn't use it without permission.
It's also possible that she may have been forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement which just might keep her from being 100% truthful about that photo and a few other things.
When both she and Levi talked, I got the feeling much was being held back. They may have been forced to keep quiet for their mother's sake. Sherry was arrested after all.
This is just one of the many pieces of the puzzle that my thoughts have always returned to. I think that that little arm just might belong to Ruffles.
And don't forget all the pictures that were stripped from Mercedes computer. Could some of them been of the babies?

I really don't know. I'm just guessing, as we all are at this point.

p.s. I think Viola's latest impressions are very interesting. Makes sense, doesn't it?

mumimor

6/6/2011 06:55:21

Could we please stop with the incest stuff?
If it's there, it will come out with the rest, when it comes out. But if this blog becomes the home of incest gossip, and there is no such thing, we will all be grouped with the birthers and other crazy people.
There are neither facts nor indications to support any theories of incest. In my opinion, it's also too complicated and unlikely. Drunk and drugged teens having unprotected sex in Alaska - that seems highly probable. (It may even be more the norm than the exception). Sherry and Sarah not conventional mothers? check - also something seen before in similar communities.
Fringe religious views combined with the above? Totally normal!

Complicated incestuous relationships - hmmm - in my experience, that type of family looks different. I'm not an expert, and I am several thousand miles away. I can't rule anything out. But if the simple version works, it's usually the truth.

With no doubt, there are tons of lies and intrigues in this story. And many, many questions, and some of these questions will eventually find answers. Like: how many babies are there in all? When were they born? Who were their mothers? But go with the simple version till it doesn't work.

What is new is that this type of family has unmediated access to power and to the national media.
I've been reading Eisenhower's informal memoirs, "At Ease". His background isn't that different from Palin's. But at the time, it was clear that an ambitious man was expected to educate himself, in many ways. Authority had (some) substance. Now, Palin can just invent stuff from out of her head, and a substantial part of the population will either believe her, or invent obscure new versions of reality in order to support her. This is the important stuff. We can't let that happen anymore (after 8 years of Bush ruining America and the world).

So: stick to the "known knowns" ;-)

Judy

6/6/2011 06:59:05

Do remember that on May 3, Levi knew he was going to be a new father. That alone would alter his mentality.

6/6/2011 07:00:35

I agree that the front of Bristol's dress looks stuffed with something - Sarah found another use for her pillow! And I also agree that there is a tender expression on the faces of both Levi and Bristol. Really sweet.

mumimor

6/6/2011 07:01:00

PS: I'm a teacher and used to speaking from a "pulpit" - but please don't think I'm trying to bully anyone.

lilly lily

6/6/2011 07:07:11

I agree. I almost never see what others see in their quest for answers. For example all the likenesses they see that I don't.

The Palins were supposedly part of a swinging group according to gossiip on the blogs by Alaskans. The snow mobile group that convened at the Roadhouse in Willow Alaska.

I don't think the Keiths had any contact with the Palin family until Bristol had her eye on Levi. Her girlfriend Lanesia's boyfriend.

Mercede claims she and Levi were exceptionaly close till Bristol came into the picture.

The two girls are rivals of sorts.

lilly lily

6/6/2011 07:31:25

Wow.

The bots over at Business Insider on the Sarah Palin thread "Please Help Us Answer This Question About Sarah Palin Once and For All" are attacking Gryphens blog, and also claiming that Sarah Palin gave out the birth certificate and other informatio about her pregnancy. She of course claimed she did, but never did.

Things are heating up, once again.

Business Insider has hit a nerve.

curiouser

6/6/2011 07:35:20

Thank you for an intriguing post. There's much to mull over so, for now, I'll only comment on the date of the kitchen photo.

The baby Levi is holding is the same baby from the shower and the same size baby. I think it's safe to say the shower was held after April 18 and that the picture of Levi in the kitchen was taken around the same time. May 3-5 - for the timing of the shower and the kitchen photo with birthday cake work. Another possible date could be to celebrate Track's birthday - April 20 - although it's less understandable that Mercede would be there than she would if it were Levi's 18th birthday.

I'm on record, ad nauseum, about the kitchen photo. I think it's plausible, even expected, that Levi would show emotion for Trig, even if he thought of him as his girlfriend's/fiancee's baby brother. Consider Levi's timeline: He was turning 18-years old and he found out two days prior to the photo that he was going to be a father himself. He's wearing a ring which supports the story that he and Bristol are engaged. I think it would be odd if he didn't show emotion. I remember how sweet my 17-year old boyfriend was with my sister's newborn and how my son related to friends' babies when he was a teen. I'm not at all ruling Levi out as Trig's father, just that the kitchen photo holds little weight to support that theory.

viola

6/6/2011 07:43:11

mumimor, I'll stop with the speculation about the relationships for Laura and Brad's sake, not yours. But take it from me, Eisenhower's background couldn't be more different from Palin's. He was from hard scrabble Texans and grew up in the midwest during the depression, more than likely with church influence. People didn't have time for anything but surviving. The Palins are wild party people, uneducated, unsupervised. They are disconnected from the older American way. (Todd is an AK secessionist.) Eisenhower stood up to the Texas oil barons of East Texas when no one else would. He was disciplined, and he was smart. He was the first to warn the US about the military industrial complex which continues to terrorize our country. Palin is a psychotic liar. End of comparison.

RenoLove

6/6/2011 07:43:43

There is one child whom the other Palin kids call baby brother. Whatever his story is, it doesn't change the fact that he is their little brother.

I fail to see the point in all this.

Please don't attack me like you would a troll. This is a valid statement.

Conscious at last!

6/6/2011 07:50:38

OK, I've said this before in more gentle ways, but I'm going to be a bit more crude:

Every "fact," "date," or piece of "hard evidence," that came from a Palin, a Johnston or any institution that the Palins could influence is SUSPECT, aka probably BULLSHIT.

So I think we need to give up relying on "Mercede said this," or "Bristol said that," or the "ADN says thus and so" OR the shower photos were in May. The shower photos could have been staged or could have actually not been a shower at all. Go back and look at them and check out the post on this topic at Sarah's Scandals.

We need to leave our security blankets behind folks and see what is before us more clearly.

lilly lily

6/6/2011 07:51:59

Everyone in the Palin family showed some feelings for the welfare of Trig, except for Sarah Palin.

Zilch, nada, it seemed she was repelled by Trig, and could barely contain that repulsion.

You don't get that from Todd or the children.

nancydrew

6/6/2011 07:53:16

It's been a while since I thought about the photos above--looking again at that dress, I'm reminded once again of the oddity of it, especially the taste and style (aside from the "shape") as pertains to Bristol Palin. There was speculation at one point that the dress was hastily "borrowed" from Meghan McCain. Made me wonder if she could be Wholey Mary. Meghan has always been clear about her disgust with the Palin people. And she really does want to see the Republicans resurrect themselves. Well, good luck with that, but…….

Shot across the bow?

mumimor

6/6/2011 07:54:44

Viola,
I agree with you about Eisenhower, and that is my point. We are in the middle of the worst depression since the 30's right now. Millions of people all over the world are struggling because of governmental support of speculation and Bank/Military/Oil/Healthcare robbery.
Palin is exactly not Eisenhower. My point was that in Eisenhower's day, a leader had to prove himself in order to lead. When Eisenhower was a relatively young officer during the 20's and 30's, he was learning, not demagoging or lying. That prepared him for national leadership later.

I agree with you that we need to stop Palin - my point is that we will have more credibility when we do that by comparing her to Eisenhower than by accusing her close family of crazy stuff.

Lidia17

6/6/2011 07:56:34

Please, Suelu, I use “Sheesh” all the time. Palin doesn’t have a copyright on goofy phrases (should she?).

“Clearly, there are attempts in the some of the comments posted to divert and derail the progress of this discussion.”

I agree, so cut it out.

=========================
I’ve also considered the possibility that Levi and Bristol might have some consanguinity of which they were unaware, only because of Todd’s alleged gun threat.

Levi may not be anyone’s dream husband, but he seems far from the worst that the Palin clan could dredge up. So why the threat of such extreme violence (if Levi's allegation is true)?

------------
Anon55: thanks for collecting those comments of Mercede’s in one place.

MJ: “I was anxious to meet Trig for a number of reasons.”

THOSE ARE SARAH’S EXACT WORDS: “anxious to meet Trig.” WHO TALKS LIKE THAT, NORMALLY?? NO ONE!! Especially not a teenager. Sarah, though, has used this same phrase more than once!!!:

“I was anxious to meet Trig. Because, believe it or not, I didn’t know what to expect. And, believe it or not, I didn’t even know what a baby with an extra chromosome was going to look like or feel like because I had a heck of a time researching Down Syndrome when I was pregnant…”
http://thenextright.com/t-d-williams/wisdom-and-courage-from-lifes-trials-sarah-palin-and-jason-atkinson

[Yep, it’s SOOOO difficult to research Down Syndrome.]

“I was glad God brought him to us early. We were so anxious to meet him. I hadn’t known what to expect.”
http://www.lifenews.com/2009/11/23/state-4591/

Mercede is dissembling big time, and Mercede and Bristol aren’t rivals “of sorts”… they seem to be real rivals.

lilly lily

6/6/2011 07:59:04

Conscious at last is correct. We see how Sarah restaged Piper and the flower apology to the reporters. And the damned press let it stand on the redone apology. It was such a simple thing. A kid was being made to apologize and didn't want to. So what is the big deal. For Sarah it grab a few flowers from a floral arrangement in the hotel lobby, shove it into the kids hand and tell her to approach the reporters and charm them.

If it doesn't fit the Palin storyline or agenda she will redo it to fit her storyline.

We have barely scratched the surface of her lies.

Doublespeak.

6/6/2011 08:03:15

@curiouser. If you're right that Triggybear is the shower baby and the photos are close in time, then the odd baby out is Hospital/Office Trig. Borrowed? A DS reborn doll? Wish I knew.

Kayleigh

6/6/2011 08:09:29

Lilly, how do we see the event "re-staged"? In the second video, shot after returning from their trip, yes Sarah carries flowers. (different flowers)

We don't see what she does with them however. Much of what people on blogs believe is contrived or just plain wrong. Much of what bloggers tell is told from anon sources whom we as readers don't know.

You use that lake picture of Bristol to show a change in body. Yet in May 07, she was a great deal fuller in the breasts and waist, as well as at the matsu picnic in June. You assume that picture's date is correct. She looks awfully young in it.

My point is, you assume a great deal from pictures. Pictures tell only one moment, not a story.

curiouser

6/6/2011 08:10:51

One more thought about Levi: Wouldn't he have likely bonded with Trig if he had been helping Bristol take care of him?

Questions for DOC: If Trig lost weight and needed a feeding tube, could the tube have been removed for the photo op? How much weight could he safely loose without being hospitalized? Could he lose weight for the first week or so and then start nursing successfully and no longer need a feeding tube by 2-3 weeks?

drivemecrazy

6/6/2011 08:12:29

To B,

Why do you wish you knew? Are you a member of the family? Why do people care about this moment in one family's life? Trig is a loved little brother, loved by his parents, his 4 siblings, their friends...

Why drive yourself batshit trying to decipher between pictures that you have no story for?

Too many people then saw Trig and too many people now see Trig for anything crazy to have happened.

Conscious at last

6/6/2011 08:12:36

@Kayleigh--- Yes, and MANY pictures tell a a story very clearly.

You are wasting your time, barking up the wrong tree and pissing in the wrong pond.

6/6/2011 08:23:24

Thank you, Conscious at Last, for saying the most important thing to remember...that nothing coming out of Palin or her camp (including people who may have been paid off) can be taken as the truth.

Sarah Palin was taught to lie when she was a kid and she hasn't stopped since. She's sucked many others into her chaos (and given birth to a few) and they lie by association.

lilly lily

6/6/2011 08:27:18

Yes, there are two versions of the flowers and Piper. Her hair is different in the two versions. In the first she stalks away refusing. In the second replayed version Piper has a bottle of water, her hair has changed as have the flowers. They redo and retake the scene one more time, and Piper instead of being sullen is charming. Probably bribed to behave, as seems to be a habit with Piper who has asked to be bribed before she behaves well.

B.S. Sarah Restaged an event.

LTA

6/6/2011 08:28:56

I just had a thought which could be nothing...but could possibly lift a valid point for someone to ask Mercede Johnston.

I just got home from work and actually read through the comments here this time where earlier I simply posted here and at BI (oh yes, Sarah released a birth cert AND "amnio results", doncha know! I bet BI is getting a ton of BROOKLYN traffic right now)

So anyway, I read the comments and something kept making me re-read the post by K.M.R which reminded us Mercede said she cropped the baby's arm out of the photo because it was their cousin and she didn't have permission to post it.

I read it over and over until I realized what my brain was trying to make me 'get'...

WHAT IS the true likelihood of Mercede carefully cropping out the image of a family member's child (a family member she could presumably ASK permission to post the photo)...

But would NOT ASK the sitting governor of Alaska if she could post numerous private photos of the governor's new child on her PUBLIC myspace page???

Am I right here? I know this is no smoking gun, but it possibly clouds up Mercede's explanation.

One last note on Mercede and the photos- I remember watching it, it's the only episode of Tyra Banks I EVER watched in my life...while showing photos of Tripp, there was a photo displayed ON the show which is unequivocally, no question whatsoever, absolutely a photo of Levi with TzrIG and not Tripp. It's from these same Triggybear photos.

I could definitely have missed it- I home schooled my oldest last year and went back to work outside the home this year so I'm sure I've missed more than I have seen. But TO MY KNOWLEDGE, Mercede has never satisfactorily explained how or why that photo (again, UN questionably of TRIG and LEVI) ended up on TV in a photo montage of "Levi's Son".

I remember when it happened, Gryphen or Audrey encouraged Mercede to keep putting out "bread crumbs". Unfortunately I think all Mercede has been putting out lately are odd behaviors and mixed signals..

beingme

6/6/2011 08:33:07

One last note about Sadie. She said as soon as she heard she was going to be an aunt, she went out and bought up all the baby stores in the valley. Recently on facebook, she asked her friends if there are any baby boutiques in the valley.

Also, in the fall 08 (Nov I think), on Sadies myspace, one of her friends said, "I knew Bristol was pregnant but I didnt know it was Levi's"

Food for thought on the truth behind Levi and Bristol's short relationship.

curiouser

6/6/2011 08:36:48

B - The ear deformity is visible in the Triggybear photo. It seems one of the few thing that are certain is that Triggybear and shower baby are the same. I think the photos of hat baby, showing different facial expressions, rule out a reborn. I kinda think weight loss is the most reasonable explanation so far...or twins.

Another question for DOC - What would it take to find a pediatric ENT or other specialist who would go on the record regarding the ear deformity and an OB who would go on the record about Sarah's March 14, 30-week, invisible pregnancy? I think that would force this issue into the mainstream.

lilly lily

6/6/2011 08:43:34

Why on earth would Sherry, Mercede and Levi Johnston bring a new born baby relation to visit with the Palins.

I never thought that was something anyone would do. Certainly not old enough for a play date between babies.

Laura Novak link

6/6/2011 09:07:35

Let the word go forth: NO ONE, least of all me, is "mining" data here. I would not even know how to begin doing that. I'm not even sure what it means.

That idea was floated by someone who is trying to stir up trouble under different names, and agitate everyone. His reasons are obvious to me. Part of his attempt is to drive traffic from this site. If you're not safe here, you'll go away, right? All rather Rovian to discredit me.

I am not "pro Palin" and I am not "mining" anyone's "data." And I'd rather not pay this person any more attention either.

Your information is safe here.

Laura Novak link

6/6/2011 09:10:32

Feeding tubes: There are different methods for this. Some people insert naso-gastric tubes as needed for feeding. That's a nasty thing to have to do plus it is hard on the nasal tissues. A child has to deal with the pain, discomfort and gagging each time. Plus they get old enough and can fight back.

Most babies have the tube left in place and taped to their face.

A gastrostomy is for longer-term needs and is hidden under the shirt. That is surgically implanted into the stomach, but can be removed manually with no sedation.

I find it hard to believe anyone would pull out a naso-gastric tube, or NG tube, just for a photo-op.

Mhurka

6/6/2011 09:13:33

There is a very interesting discussion of DS twins at palinpeytonplace.com. A syndrome called Twin-to-Twin Transfer Syndrome is not an uncommon occrrence with DS twins. (In this syndrome the twins look physically different because one twin is born relatively robust while the other is frail looking.) An excellent read.

curiouser

6/6/2011 09:34:53

Thanks, Laura.

lilly lily

6/6/2011 09:35:11

Actually this Paul Revere nonsense of Sarah Palin is going so viral, that it might sink her entire faux presidential run.

People are disgusted, especially with her bots attempting to change historical accuracy at Wikipedia with Palins idiotic word salad version of the ride.

SLQ

6/6/2011 09:46:06

Thanks, Laura. Sorry I fell for the bait.

elizabeth

6/6/2011 10:03:21

I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin reads this blog. We know she reads IM and I'm certain she or one of her cohorts read the other 'anti' Palin blogs just to see what is being put out there.

So here is my question. Why would any mother sit and read these blogs that put forth hundreds (if not thousands) of posts filled with speculation that her child is not her child, her daughter has been pregnant numerous times, she may have faked her pregnancy by sticking a pillow under her skirt, that she switched out babies, that there could be incest or drugs or even murder involved, etc. etc. etc.

If she wasn't reading this blogs that would be one thing, but we know she reads them and yet every single question any of us have ever had about the strange pregnancy of Sarah Palin in 2008 could be cleared up with clear and easy proof from one Ms. Sarah Palin.

So I ask, what mother does that to her kids?????

The only explanation I can ever come up with is a mother who has lied so badly or has something so ugly to cover, the truth just can't be told.

So before anyone accuses other posters of stepping over the line with theories or far-out scenarios never forget that there is a mother out there who because she won't explain what happened does this to her own children.

And this is someone anyone in the country wants as their President? She can't protect her own family! What would she do to this country????

curiouser

6/6/2011 10:09:26

Brad - Piper's birthday is March 19. That would still leave the question of why is Mercede there and how could they risk having the shower in March, with baby, increasing the number of people who would be in on the hoax.

ginny

6/6/2011 10:13:57

The whole mess is just...a big mess. I don't think I've ever seen any credible evidence AT ALL of any kind of incest, other than the little "tidbits" dropped by anonymous commenters on the various blogs over the last couple of years. Little "hints" of something so awful, so horrific...Yes I know. CBJ works (worked) with victims of abuse, including, presumably, incest. But that still is not evidence that anything like that is central to the babygate story.
But one thing did occur to me. For a long time, people on the blogs, especially women, have gotten the "heebie-jeebies" from Chuck Health, to the point that his blog nickname is Creepy Chuck. Part of this is a visceral reaction, part it is from his own actions, words and behavior. Wearing that "hottest governor" shirt, talking about the kids "losing their underwear", the way he's behaved toward SP. Then, the Dunn book came out, and the description of SP's relationship with her father as a teen (with on-the-record interviews with a teammate who witnessed the interactions btwn SP and CC) made me think more and more that their relationship was not healthy. Today, reading again about CC and SP, for some reason, a lightbulb went off for me: I was suddenly reminded of Mackenzie Phillips and her revelation that she was the victim of an incestuous relationship with her father for ten years. And then, I thought of someone I know, that I grew up with (she was a few years yonnger than me, but was good friends with my younger sister up until around jr. high). Good Catholic family. Small, VERY small town. Our moms were friends. Around this girl's senior year, her younger sis told a h.s. counselor that her father and older sis had been having an incestuous relationship since she was a little girl. The entire family, except a few, ostracized the younger sis, the mother lost custody of her and the younger siblings due to her loyalty to the abusive father. The victim of the incest even stood by her father, visiting him in prison. It was incredibly awful, scandalous and horribly sad.
I don't know why, but I just get that weird "ick" feeling about CC when it come SP. You've no idea how absolutel NORMAL and HAPPY a family can appear to be, while all the time this is going on and everyone is keeping the secret.

DebinOH

6/6/2011 10:15:45

The ear is so deformed looking that I just cannot imagine it could correct itself that soon - if it could. Even with surgery I can't imagine it could look that good after either. The only thing that is weird though is why does it still have that square shape toward the middle bottom of the ear. It also has a y shape -< toward the top right side of his ear. To me that part looks the same but not the "ruffly" outer ear. Maybe I am crazy;)

If there were twins would they both have the same weird ear (I mean the double helix not the ruffling)?

To be honest I have never noticed anyone with that odd ear (double helix?) thing. Does anyone else know anyone with this oddity? I don't mean to make it sound like a defect or anything but I just have never seen anything like it. The fact that Sarah and Trig both have it makes me wonder though.

I don't know, like everything else this just adds to the bizarreness of SP. There is just nothing remotely normal about that family at all..........

6/6/2011 10:59:00

seeing the side by side Sarah-Bristol-Trig ear photo, makes me think Trig might definitely be a member of the Heath clan. I too have never seen an ear like that.

Re the change in Bristol's demeanor after the Triggybear photo, I might chalk that up to the stresses of motherhood. After that photo was taken she was pregnant and maybe suffered morning sickness, then was caring for a newborn and dealing with the adult world (and an increasingly unbalanced mother & life in the spotlight.). That's enough to make anyone less lighthearted.

Conscious at last

6/6/2011 11:33:29

Why was it OK for Bristol to be pregnant in 2008, but not OK for her to be pregnant in 2007? That is, why did SP fake the pregnancy? (in concert with obvious political motives):

I remember a discussion somewhere about the veracity of Bristol's stated age. We have been told that she was born in October, 1990. However, I've seen where some folks have challenged that and suggested that she was born in Oct, 1991. (I don't remember where, when I have time, I'll check.) If true, that would mean she got pregnant when she was 15. Here is one possible reason for the cover-up. Of course the other side of that coin is the who, what, when and where of how she got pregnant. (Yes Sarah, we actually know how to do this type of "journalistic analysis.")

I also note that SP & Co. made certain that photogenic Levi appeared at the convention and played the role of "responsible baby-daddy." His affection to Trig was evident and noteworthy.

kidgloves

6/6/2011 11:52:54

To conscious at last,
Thank you for asking this. It's simple.
Bristol was not pregnant in 2007.
She has nothing to do with Trig.

LTA

6/6/2011 12:33:47

"Brooklyn"-

If you never have commented before...how on earth can you think anyone is referring to you? The person we are referring to is the one using all the different usernames. If you have never posted here why would you think these comments are directed toward you? Isn't it within the realm of POSSIBILITY that more than one person lives in Brooklyn?

You contradict yourself so wildly, I am starting to believe that rumor about SP setting up an account with a New York IP address.

"My comments are not meant to derail conversation".
"This is the first comment I've ever left here".

Sounds like

"Trig was born in Wasilla!"
"Trig was born in Anchorage!"

Or

"I didn't have to hide I was pregnant since I was hardly showing!"
"I had to start hiding my pregnancy with scarves because I was starting to show so much!"

Oy vey, you palinbots.. "I have met the Palins and I can PROVE she gave birth to Trig but I'm gonna let you stew in your ridiculousness!"

In other words..."Well if YOU don't know, I'M not telling!"

Who Knows?

6/6/2011 12:45:25

From Wikipedia:

After losing a promise ring on a caribou hunt, Johnston had Bristol's name tattooed on his finger.[8][13]

[8] http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1596899/sarah-palins-future-soninlaw-levi-johnston-opens-up.jhtml
During a caribou hunt last July, he lost a promise ring Bristol gave him, so he decided to tattoo her name on the finger and not bother with more rings.
--------
Levi lost the ring before getting his tattoo so that would be before Tripp was born. The hospital pic
would then be of Trig and Levi with the hospital ID band.

Did he buy another ring and wear it on his thumb
after he had the tattoo?

6/6/2011 13:19:16

@Who Knows. He must have bought another ring. The Esquire article has him wearing a wedding ring on his thumb and Molly and other members of Bristol's family teasing him about it. So it can be Tripp.

mxm

6/6/2011 13:28:41

Thank you Laura and Docs for such an interesting and objective discussion.

After Gryphen first posted his Tale of Two Babies, I did some research on the ear deformity and found that it was most likely a condition called microtia.

My observations about the ear were that the external ear was incompletely formed, positioned and missing some components of a normal ear. The external auditory meatus appeared to be just outside the anatomical framework of the external ear and the components of the helix and tragus were quite irregular or incomplete. Because the lobe was not visualized as it was covered by clothing, I could not determine its presence or absence.

In my opinion, based on research related to congenital ear deformities, the ruffled ear was an example of microtia and the degree of deformity fell somewhere between grades I and II. There are many articles and photos available to demonstrate the varying degrees of deformity associated with this condition. One simple discussion from a physician site (http://www.robertrudermd.com/microtia.html) follows:

What is Microtia?

When a normal ear develops, it includes an external ear fully formed, and a middle ear that carries sound waves to the brain. Patients with microtia do not have a normal external ear. Instead, many come into this world with a small nub or nodule where the ear should exist.

Usually this occurs when the outer ear partially forms during fetal development. Because the internal ear canal becomes blocked, most patients experience difficulty hearing. Some may hear distorted sounds, while others may not hear at all. This is more common among children born with microtia affecting both ears.

There are four distinct grades of microtia, ranging from mild to moderate.

* Grade I microtia results when a child develops an almost normal looking ear that is smaller than normal, but functioning.

* Grade II microtia involves developing a partial external ear, resulting in partial loss of hearing. Patients with grade II microtia may have a closed external ear canal, allowing them to hear only muffled sounds.

* Grade III microtia, the most common form of microtia, involves the lack of an external ear and ear canal, as well as eardrum. Patients with Grade III microtia often have a tiny nub or piece of skin where the external ear should reside.

* Grade IV microtia is the most severe form of the defect, where patients have no ear and accompanying anatomical structures of the ear.

All articles that I read suggested that any reconstruction would involve a series of surgical procedures, beginning around age 5 or 6. The first of the efforts involves removing a segment of rib cartilage from the child to serve as the framework for the reconstruction. Subsequent procedures are simpler. Before and after photos show remarkable success in creating a normal appearance.

While the cause is rarely definitively determined, it can be due to some interruption in blood supply during the critical period that the ear is forming. Since other organ systems are forming at the same time, the presence of microtia can be associated with other very significant organ system deformities or defects.

Twin to twin transfusion syndrome is one recognized cause as it can create a significant imbalance in blood supply between the fetuses. This struck me as particularly interesting as a close family member had twin to twin transfusion syndrome during her second pregnancy. She had outstanding perinatal care and her preemie twins were born at 31 weeks and did well. The difference in size between the babies was 'startling'. That difference in size between identical twins, one was twice the birth weight of the other, caused most who saw them to deny they were identical. Yet they were. Just sharing a personal family experience.

6/6/2011 13:33:23

@drivemecrazy. I said, "I wish I knew," the relationship b/t Hospital Trig and Triggybear. Why do you say that make me batshit crazy? Projection?

6/6/2011 13:37:54

@Curiouser. I agree that Triggybear goes to the shower. My doubt is about Hospital Trig. He must have lost a lot of weight.

crystalwolfakacaligrl

6/6/2011 14:23:03

Brooklyn you are a well know Palinbot troll...go away!
Your queen is about to be exposed.
She has dared the GOP and she will be sorry end of story. go hitch your wagon to another loser.
Bye, Bye!

tanya phillips

6/6/2011 14:27:37

I remember a post at IM from anon 4:32 who said that the Trig that was born at the end of January 2008 is not the Trig who appeared in the 2008 campaign or afterwards. My guess is that the little baby with the ruffled ear was also very sick. 4:32 suggested that the child was premature and could have been deaf, blind and/or have cerebral palsy. The diagnosis of DS came later (which doesn't match what the good doctor said here, unless the little baby was so ill that DS wasn't their first concern). The first Trig (with the ruffled ear) could be institutionalized or just didn't survive if things were as bad as 4:32 said. But, Sarah had announced giving birth to a DS kid, so they had to produce another, maybe through their church. It's a pity that the adoption records were destroyed in a fire, that only destroyed the records.

LakeLucilleLoon link

6/6/2011 14:29:21

I can't believe that so many obviously intelligent people spend so much time parsing the words of people like Mercede Johnston. It's rather obvious that given Mercede's intellectual credentials, that she could be bought off quite easily by the Palins and made to say whatever they tell her to.

The entire fiasco, in which the family computers were "scrubbed" by the Secret Service, certainly is a complete fabrication put forth to garner Ms. Johnston some more credibility.

Look, she seems nice enough, but also completely naive and with a connection to infants that, face it, most girls her age do not have. All of the 16-20 year olds that I know focus on school, clothes, boys and if one of their relatives poops out a kid, they don't have much to say about it, much less blog about it or take photos with it.

Mercede is a red herring thrown out to the masses by the Palins.

search4more

6/6/2011 14:39:48

So it comes down to measurements again! I mentioned this in the last thread but I'm going to do it again. "photogrammetry" (finding the location of points with multiple photos). These people are minor celebirites. They are photographed a lot. surely we can get a half decent measurement of Palin's mum's arm and Mercede's arm based on all the photos that must exist of them. Palin's mum was just on her bus tour. She was at the Pizza restaurant with Trump! her arm was on the table probably. someone can't go and measure stuff she was around...and compare it to photos?

It's hard I know, but surely doable.

6/6/2011 14:41:19

Now "Brooklyn" shows up to defend herself and tell us that it's an entirely DIFFERENT Palinbot from Brooklyn who has defiled this message board with her insane ranting.

Ah, Brooklyn, you are quite the actress (I don't mean that literally). You're also a busy little beaver, aren't you?

search4more

6/6/2011 14:51:20

...Oh. One more thing. Mercede is contactable and prepared to talk to anti Palin people right?. She writes blog posts and stuff right? Why doesn't someone that knows her ask her to put on that white top and measure her arms, or take a pic of them with a ruler by them. she may say "no", but what is lost by asking her?

Next Chapter link

6/6/2011 14:58:33

After Gryphen broke this story, I started revisiting old photos to see if I could find any other photos to confirm what he said. Well, I found did! I would love to have a EENT MD take a look or a otologist give their opinion on it. I believe that I have proof that the two babies were switched out during the RNC in 2008. I believe that 'Ruffles' had some corrective surgery that can be seen in one of the photos. I also believe that they may be twins. I have identical twin nieces that had twin-to-twin syndrome while they were in utero. That is why they looked alike, but one was larger than the other one. This syndrome would explain how there could be two babies with Down syndrome, while one would be larger than the other one, it can also explain why one baby had a deformity of the ears while the other one would not. It would also explain two baby boys being the same age with Down syndrome that could possibly be switched out. If you have a chance, please take a look. I would love to hear other thoughts on the hypothesis.

http://www.palinpeytonplace.com/the-switch.html

http://www.palinpeytonplace.com/2-babies-1-surgical-repair---presented-by-sarah-palin.html

http://www.palinpeytonplace.com/2-babies-1-mother.html

KMiller

6/6/2011 15:05:13

The pictures with mercede in the kitchen appear to have been from the day that Ruffles was finally allowed to go home (sometime after a late Dec-early Feb delivery, but WAY before mid-April.) In those pictures Ruffles looks to be somewhere between 5 and 6 pounds. Just because mercede said they were from a particular date doesn't mean it's the truth.
I agree, these are two different babies.

KMiller

6/6/2011 15:11:37

KMR said: "I will add that little Ruffles could well have been a female. She has a much more delicate look. "

I agree---I suspected very early that Ruffles was a girl. My daughter was a very tiny 37-weeker with that same petite, girlish face. She looks like a little elf in early pictures. :-)

KMiller

6/6/2011 15:26:53

FEDUP!!!

6/6/2011 16:12:45

I just remembered the picture of the Palin kids sitting on the grass, with Bristol holding Trig.
Upon closer inspection, it is evident that Trig in that picture is wearing a feeding tube, as many people had pointed out at that time (I believe it was during Audrey's blog (Palindeceptions)time.
I do NOT remember paying attention to the ears (or if they were even visible) of the baby.
Just wanted to throw it out there. Maybe someone can find the picture and post it again, and we can check out if that Trig was Ruffles or not.

silver

6/6/2011 16:15:13

When Barbara Walters interviewed Palin she said they didn't see a lot of Levi and when he and Bristol told her and Todd about the pregnancy "that was probably only the second time that we'd seen Levi there in our living room having a conversation with us like that".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qp_qaDxgkQ

That could mean that it was the second time since knowing about Levi that they had all been together in the living room having a conversation. Or it could mean that it was the second time they'd gathered in the living room to talk about Bristol being pregnant, the first time with one baby, possibly Trig, and the second time with another, Tripp.

If Sarah didn't know Levi very well when Bristol told her about being pregnant with Tripp in May, it seems strange Levi would be there for the birth of her own baby, Trig, in April.

FEDUP!!!

6/6/2011 16:39:50

One more random, strange thing that comes to my mind right now, since people are talking about the possibility of there having been a boy and a girl baby potentially: Somewhere there is a picture that I have seen - supposedly of Tripp - but the kid is wearing a ribbon in his (?) hair...

Phyllis

6/6/2011 17:21:44

I saw a picture of Bristol and Levi that was taken during the campaign and Levi had a ring on his thumb.
They were on a bus,I think,both of them sound asleep.

I think it was on Megan McCain's blog.

curiouser

6/6/2011 18:04:54

I just finished Bailey's book. Sarah unabashedly lies about everything. Of course, she'd fake a pregnancy, switch babies, or do anything she thought was for her benefit or to harm her perceived enemies. If Bristol isn't Trig's birth mother, Sarah may have started the rumor that Bristol was pregnant simply to have an easy cover if one was ever needed. She's despicable.

comeonpeople

6/6/2011 21:38:53

Laura said:
I find it hard to believe anyone would pull out a naso-gastric tube, or NG tube, just for a photo-op.

Laura, very young babies you may know can also be feed orogastric route, rather than NG. Yes,re: NGs most leave it in, but absolutely people take them out for photo ops, or take the photos in between when the baby vomits out the tube! The baby in kitchen photos look like an orogastric tube candidate to me.

comeonpeople

6/6/2011 22:00:47

FEDUP!!!
Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:12:45
I just remembered the picture of the Palin kids sitting on the grass, with Bristol holding Trig.
Upon closer inspection, it is evident that Trig in that picture is wearing a feeding tube, as many people had pointed out at that time (I believe it was during Audrey's blog (Palindeceptions)time.
I do NOT remember paying attention to the ears (or if they were even visible) of the baby.
Just wanted to throw it out there. Maybe someone can find the picture and post it again, and we can check out if that Trig was Ruffles or not.

@Fedup: I thought in the picnic photo we were questioning the presence of an nasal oxygen canula, not an NG tube. People were saying it couldn't be oxygen as there was no tank, but the tanks for a baby that size are not tanks, rather little portable cannisters in nondescript carrying cases.

comeonpeople

6/6/2011 22:04:08

To clarify re orogastric tubes. These are inserted via the mouth into the stomach and removed immediately after feeding via syringe. Often this method is used after the baby takes what it can via sucking from a bottle and then what is left is delivered to insure adequate intake. I certainly think the Palins would need help with this skill at home, but perhaps I am not giving them enough credit.

Jeanett123

6/6/2011 22:43:10

Couple of responses

I think the picture in Sarah's kitchen was taken much earlier than Levi's birthday, most likely after a baby was born in January or February. There is a picture with Sarah, Mercedes and the baby, but I think Sarah was photoshopped in. That picture was in sepia and the others were in color. The sepia would have made it easier to place someone it the photo.

As to the bizarre picture of Bristol at the convention, there was quite a bit of analysis of that photo done a long time ago on Palins Deception that showed the stuffing. I am not sure if that site is still up.

I wish there were more than the one photo of the ruffled ear or that the person holding the baby would confirm it was Trig. There are often other babies at a baby shower.

I am quite certain that there was more than one baby Trig or at least the baby shown at the hospital with the Heaths was not a newborn baby Trig.

Ms.Kat

6/6/2011 23:16:05

So, I've been following Babygate since day one, since the day that McCain announced his running mate. Pretty much the first stories that came up in my initial Google searches on Palin were the odd ADN stories about her invisible pregnancy and the Wild Ride (before it was so named). Even before I read that first post on DailyKos or anything else, I thought: something is really wrong here.

And I've followed all the thoughtful Babygate blogs, like Audrey's, and Gryphen's. And I'm very appreciative that Laura is re-examining the evidence, such as it is.

Among the 500-plus comments on the previous post, someone pointed out that the most likely motivation for Palin to fake a pregnancy would be her own political gain, rather than the more conventional reason, a mom protecting the reputation of her daughter. And I think that observation is right on. (This doesn't mean the real mother isn't Bristol, but it certainly suggests that there are other possibilities.)

In all of this, the single most revealing moment for me came in Michael Joseph Gross's Vanity Fair article last October:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/sarah-palin-201010

As you may recall, he opens with a rally in Independence, MO. The rally begins with a walk-on of Piper pushing a baby in a carriage that the writer assumed was Trig:

"When the girl, Piper Palin, turns around, she sees her parents thronged by admirers, and the crowd rolling toward her and the baby, her brother Trig, born with Down syndrome in 2008. Sarah Palin and her husband, Todd, bend down and give a moment to the children; a woman, perhaps a nanny, whisks the boy away; and Todd hands Sarah her speech and walks her to the stage. He pokes the air with one finger. She mimes the gesture, whips around, strides on four-inch heels to stage center, and turns it on."

The article's veracity was attacked because of a big mistake that Gross made in that lede. The baby in the carriage wasn't Trig at all, but some other kid with DS.

See the corrections:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/09/michael-joseph-gross-responds-to-criticism-of-his-article-on-sarah-palin.html

Of course, from where Gross was standing, in the audience, there was no way of knowing that the baby in question wasn't Trig. And that's exactly the point. The baby wasn't an actual member of Palin's family but a prop. All the Palin detractors who've accused Palin of using Trig as a prop (back when he was cuter and more manageable) were right. If Trig isn't available, another DS baby will do. The disabled baby isn't a family member but a symbol.

Which is a little strange, you know? Maybe all the suppositions about Palin family soap opera (teen pregnancy, incest, adultery, etc.), scenarios that have played out in countless other families, are wrong. Maybe the story of Trig is about the acquisition of a powerful political symbol. Maybe the shocking thing is that this is not about sex at all, but about power, and how far Palin would go to get it.

Tillie

6/6/2011 23:16:53

A few points:

1. One of the doctors who looked at the ear for Gryphen was an ENT. He concurred that there was no way the ear could have "morphed" from what was seen in the kitchen photos (in May) to what was seen in September, and stated on the record that any corrective plastic surgery would be done when the child was at least four years old.
2. The photo of the wrapped, chubbier, baby in the Heath grandparents' arms is absolutely verified as being from April 18th, as it was shot by an independent news crew. It's also definitely on the OB unit of Mat-Su Hospital.
2. There's considerable evidence that the dating on the "kitchen" photos is accurate, and speculation that these photos were from months earlier is counterproductive. First, the baby matches the photos shown at the baby shower which was absolutely confirmed to be the same weekend. (Cole published the pictures to her website's blog the next Monday, May 5th.) Mercede published the photos in the kitchen to her own MySpace page simultaneously (early May), where they sat, unnoticed, until they were yanked down after Palin was picked to run with McCain.
3. Mercede has stated that they were there for Levi's birthday (May 3rd), and a birthday cake is visible in the photos.

My conclusion: the baby in the hall in the hospital may well be the "real" Trig (as in the baby/child we see today.) He is not a newborn on April 18th, and certainly weighs far more than six pounds. He was probably born 2-3 months before April 18th, (and probably, though not certainly, to Bristol) and was both early and sick. Nevertheless, by early April, he was too big and too healthy-looking to be passed off as a newborn. And remember, as she was planning all this (let's assume in March) she was somehow not planning on showing a baby until mid-MAY. Real Trig would have been even bigger by then.

So, somehow, Sarah locates a pregnant woman whose baby she can borrow on a few occasions while she makes this eventual switch. (Weren't the "adoption records" from her church's adoption service one of the things that burned on December 13th, 2008?) It is this random baby (who probably passed in and out of the story) whose mother went into labor early (mid April 2008) instead of May as planned.

So then Scarah has a second problem. On April 18th she has TWO babies, but none she can really show. Baby One (real Trig) is relatively fat and healthy looking (at least 10 pounds, maybe more). He is at least three months old, as his skin and subcutaneous fat shows clearly.

Baby Two (Ruffles) is genuinely early but also can't be shown, handled, or taken out of the hospital for a few days. So she's screwed - because if she announces her baby has to stay in a NICU... well, there's not one at Mat-Su. The baby would have had to have been transferred (hard to hide that from the press) and she certainly would have come under criticism for "having" him there in the first place.

She would then be expected to visit, the press would have to know where the baby was staying, etc. The press would have expected daily (even hourly) updates on the governor's sick baby.

So to get the whole thing out of the public eye as quickly as possible, she has to bring "her" baby home quietly at the expected "healthy" discharge time (36-48 hours after birth.)

But if she brings the baby home (and is going to claim the baby is healthy enough to do so), well, people are going to want to see it. So she shows "a baby" in the hall at Mat-Su (bundled up) and she shows a baby publicly in her office three days later (same chubby face.) Why? Because Ruffles (who was going to be her newborn stunt double) is still in the hospital, or too weak or sick to be handled and taken out.

At that point, though, who knows? Maybe she started hearing some comments from the reporters that were in her office that day (that have never been made public) that the baby looked awfully big for a six pound four day old baby. (We know the reporters there were already skeptical of the water breaking story.) So she decides she can't risk taking real Trig to the shower, where other women are going to be holding him, handling him, etc.

By then (first of May), however, Ruffles is available, and she makes the decision to use him for that weekend - he shows up in both her home and at Kristin Cole's office. He also apparently shows up on at least one other occasion, as a grainy photo we see in Frank Bailey's book, also dated "May 2008."

Note how, when Sarah is holding him for "official pictures" at the shower, she almost seems to be pressing the blanket up against the side of his head - hiding the right ear. But then she loses track of him, as he gets passed around, and the famous (clear) photo of the young girl holding him is snapped.

Then, as a final comment: yes, babies lose weight. But the ones that lose weight tend to be weak, sick, fragile. The baby with the Heaths and in Palin's Anchorage office is a healt

Who Knows?

6/6/2011 23:21:34

Here are two photos supposedly of Trig but to me they don't look like him - something seems different about them.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jzGq2M4sGRg/TbAFmzYoy0I/AAAAAAAAIYs/0GjMcbFsmBk/s1600/trig%2Bvan%2Bpalin.jpg

(notice the VP in 'his' halo - Van Palin or Vice President?)

http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/palin-daughter-baby.jpg

Laura Novak link

6/7/2011 02:23:36

Commonpeople: You are absolutely right about the oral feeding tubes. In fact I know one person who did that for a while. I too have a hard time believing this family would handle that, but one never knows.

I always believed that it was a nasal canula in that park photo. The oxygen tank can be very small and portable and can extend far with tubing.

Ah, the mysteries continue, as does this great discussion. Thank you all for your intelligent thoughts and input.

lilly lily

6/7/2011 02:29:06

Gryphen posted a new picture of the ear from Frank Baileys book.

Sarah holding a "sleeping Trig" on her shoulder.

Quiet1

6/7/2011 02:57:21

Regarding Merdedes' comment about a baby cousin being cropped out of a photo: It seems like it should be fairly easy to confirm yea or nea by establishing Johnston a family tree of some sort to determine if there actually was a child of that age at the time the photo was taken.

viola

6/7/2011 03:18:18

Ms. Kat, very interesting, the VF article. I remember it. Two salient points in your recounting: that a MALE journalist assumed the baby was Trig. No self-respecting journalist would ever assume he/she knew the identity of a person without verification, but somehow babies cause us to assume things. Imagine a friend with a newborn brought a different newborn baby over to your house, would you know the difference??! I probably wouldn't. It's as if personhood has to be acquired with time! So shame on the journalist for circumstantially assuming that the baby was Trig. BUT more important, is the Palin's camp need to jump on the correction! Was this mistake about identity so close to the bone, that the sub-conscious jump to finger-point was almost too big for what happened. I mean, who would make a big deal out of making sure your DS baby isn't MY DS baby. Isn't that a bit much? So, I think you're right. I think it's another telling incident that points at a hoax.

However, I keep thinking about WholyMary. Stop with the proving of the hoax already, and work out the why, and you'll nail her.

Laura and Brad, what do you make of this ear info? Two babies? A Feb baby and an April baby?

FEDUP!!!

6/7/2011 03:45:06

Here is a question: Do the earlobes of the baby with the white hat with the doggie applique (pic #3) look the same to you as the ear lobes of 'Trig" in the October pics?
Somehow, I do not see ANY earlobes in the October pics, but I DEFINITELY see an ear lobe in picture #3...

lilly lily

6/7/2011 03:46:20

I think the child was older than Trig by years. He made the assumption because Piper was playing with the boy in his stroller, assumed it was her brother.

Gasman

6/7/2011 04:31:05

It seems painfully obvious that there have been/are at least three different children who have acted in the role of "Trig." What is the current status and welfare of these three (or more) different children? Are they safe or even alive?

Palin's rather callous indifference to the welfare of these children is worthy of investigation. She has seen fit to use these children as mere props. Once their usefulness passes, so does her interest in them. What happens to these "spent" Trigs?

Could Palin's exploitation of the team of Trigs rise to the legal definition of child abuse? THAT is as yet an unanswered question.

K.M.R

6/7/2011 04:34:52

The black and white photo of the baby in Sarah's arms from Bailey's book is yet another baby, imho.

The ear looks a bit "ruffled" but less so than the other photos we have previously viewed of baby Ruffles.
The piece of cartilage in the front area of the ear, called the tragus as I learned from the doctor, looks to be present and noticeable. The hole is not.

Her/his lips are much fuller which may be because of the way he/she is positioned on Sarah's shoulder but I'd say the fuller lips does rule out FAS.

The nose also looks unlike the other photos, but of that I am less sure since his/her lips may be pushing upwards on her/his nose making it look rounder.

I've clicked on the Bailey photo in order to increase the size, and still this is what I see.

DebinOH

6/7/2011 04:44:09

I was never convinced that there were two (or three at one point was discussed) babies but looking at the pictures here and the ones on palinpaytonplace again it really makes you wonder if there are twins. I agreed that they looked odd but since the interior of the ear with the double helix was there in the pictures could there be two infants with ears like that?

The ear halix thing appears to be the same on both babies but the outside shape and the bottom of the ear where it connects looks so different.

Anyone have a baby they can take pictures of to see if their ears look so different from different camera angles?

I feel bad for always sitting on the fence about did she or didn't she give birth & the two baby scenario because it is just so hard to believe anyone would be so crazy to do something like this. Clearly she is crazy but this is off the wall crazy.

At this point with the photos that show that the babies ears are so different how would a birth certificate prove anything? Would it list a twin on the birth certificate?

Does anyone believe it is NOT twins?

Conscious at last

6/7/2011 05:07:56

I'll leave the issue of Ruffles and Trig(s) to you good folks. Clearly IM's findings are VERY important.

But I just wanted to say that I've looked around a bit for some confirmation of Bristol's true birth year. I have found various articles on the net that state 1990, but also quite a few that give 1991 as her birth year. Again this is significant because if 1991 is correct, she became pregnant at 15. Many would find this troubling. There are contradicting dates of birth for the other Palin children too. If anyone has any idea of how we can get this straight, it would be helpful. Perhaps one of our Alaskan friends here can tell us exactly when Bristol started kindergarten.

I also think that part of the reason the Palins had a strong desire to cover the truth has to do with the "actual" connections between the Palins and the Johnstons. I will repeat a comment that I made before:

We must understand that there are clear indications the Palins and their ilk lived a polygamous and polyandrous life. Things could get very complicated under these circumstances.

DebinOH

6/7/2011 05:26:01

god's little helper - if SP is going down then I assume you mean a divorce is in the picture next?

ginny

6/7/2011 05:31:23

GLH, you are telling us that Sarah is planning on some sort of "confession" that will not be the REAL truth, will try to make her look good and sympathetic (and probably, but extension, make the bloggers and LSM look mean and bad), and will try to put the issue to rest so no one will look for or find the TRUE TRUTH?

DebinOH

6/7/2011 05:36:43

ginny - That is what I have always been expecting her to do (if she really did fake it). She can turn anything around to make herself look like a saint. I do think though that if the shit hits the fan there is already so much evidence than there was before. How could she explain that away?

It would not just be swept under the rugs and if Sarah thinks she can put the genie back in the bottle she is sorely mistaken!

I think she could survive divorce better than this scenario.

ginny

6/7/2011 05:44:33

Have you seen these, Laura and Doc?

Pics of evidence that the first baby Trig we saw when McCain announced SP for VP slot was "Ruffles":
http://www.palinpeytonplace.com/the-switch.html

Here is a "merging" of the baby-shower ear pic with the VP announcement pic:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35383132@N00/4715365960/

I'm pretty impressed.

Banyan

6/7/2011 05:59:13

@ DebinOH

I sincerely doubt that any of the babies presented as "Trig" are twins to any of the other babies presented as "Trig" -- especially, I do not think that Baby "Ruffles" is a merely a smaller twin of the very hefty-looking, robust baby (babies) presented as "Trig" at the RNC and beyond.

Several people have mentioned" Twin-To-Twin Transfusion as a possible reason for the size discrepancies in the various babies known as Trig, but Twin-To-Twin Transfusion theory to explain these size differences seems highly unlikely to me.

Babies born with Twin- to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome are both at serious risk for life-endangering problems, all in addition to the very serious problems of prematurity itself.

Ironically, the larger of the twins is generally much sicker, and in greater danger, than the smaller twin.

This is due to MAJOR systemic disruptions that can occur from a blood overload -- including damage to the heart, to the liver, and to the brain. Such a baby generally needs more in the way of very intensive care than the smaller twin.

If the "Trig" described by anon 4:32 was born "startingly" prematurely, it is likely that months of NICU care ensued for him -- and for his twin, (if there was one.)

Neither baby would look as chunky and robust as the "Trig(s)" presented at the RNC or beyond.

So, no, I don't believe the baby presented as "Trig" in the hospital with the Heaths or the baby (babies) presented at the RNC and beyond could ever have undergone such a long and brutal course of intensive care as is the case with extremely preterm T-T-T transfusion babies.

6/7/2011 06:09:13

THANK YOU god's little helper! Everybody, it seems that Tillie's scenario is the correct one - give or take- and that the Trig we see today is Bristol and Keith's (and Ruffle was just a temporary loaner).

Brad Scharlott

6/7/2011 06:18:17

I think "god's little helper" is trying to sow discord and confusion. It would probably be best to disregard what he/she has to say.

ginny

6/7/2011 06:18:45

You know what? The more I look at the "ruffle" pics at the baby shower, the new pic from Bailey's book (posted by Gryphen over at IM) and some of the ones from the RNC and the campaign trail, the more I think that the "hole" in that baby-shower pic is NOT a hole, but an illsion of a hold created by lighting/shadows and camera angle. It's hard to explain in words, but if you look at the close-up of Ruffles baby shower ear pic, focus on the area to the left edge of the "hole". If you look closely, you can see that it's not really the edge of a hole, it's just that the camera angle makes that look like a connected and continuous area of flesh. But it's not. You can see the faint blurry darker "line" separating the area of the lower-left edge of the "hole" and the upper area. This blurry line is actually the edge of one outer-area of the ear, and above the "line" is the flesh of the part of the ear closer to/more attched to the head/skull.
The more I look, the more convinced I am. There is no hole. It's an illusion due to camera angle and lighting.
I still am convinced that there are two very different ears during the 2008 campaign, though. From this comparison: http://www.palinpeytonplace.com/the-switch.html
the Aug. 29th ear is completely different from the Sept. 3rd and Oct. 2nd ears. It has much more lobe, and has completely different shape, both outer and inner.

DebinOH

6/7/2011 06:19:15

Banyon, There are a few things that I do know is 1) Sarah Palin did NOT look postpartum. I have never seen any pregnant woman who gave birth look slim and trim and able to fit into clothes smaller that she appeared to be wearing during her "pregnancy" two days later. Go to any hospital and take a look at the mother's who gave birth.

For that matter there is a picture of Sarah 4 weeks postpartum after Piper. That is how a real postpartum woman looks. That to me is more of a nail in the coffin that any of the other pics. Not only that but she doesn't look tired at all. I don't know one mom who is absolutely exhausted looking that soon.

2) The RNC Trig is really big. If he was the same baby as presented in the kitchen with Levi & his sister I have a hard time believing he put on that much weight and grew that fast.

3) The wild ride story is nuts.

4) Sarah faking a pregnancy is nuts.

5) The ear thing is weird, I can't dispute that fact.

6) EVERYTHING about this woman is crazy and just bizarre.

7) Why any sane person would put up with this bullshit and let people go on and on about her and her family without pulling out a birth certificate to stop it is nuts. I would have had that birth certificate front and center in every newspaper. She gets so wee weed up over every perceived slight. If you read what she was doing with Bailey that is exactly what she would have done. That is her M.O. Why does she leave this alone?

How could everything this woman does or is associated with be so bizarre. What are the chances - 1 in a zillion?

ginny

6/7/2011 06:22:16

Sorry for all the typos there. Should have proof read.
"illsion" = illusion
"hold" = hole
"attched" = attached

DebinOH

6/7/2011 06:22:17

Oops - I mean NOT exhausted a couple days after birth.

SLQ

6/7/2011 06:23:17

Thanks, Brad. That was my hunch, as well. GLH's tone, if nothing else, makes me suspicious.

SLQ

6/7/2011 06:28:20

This comment, sounding very much like our very own "God's Little Helper," was posted on IM this morning, so just thought I'd share:

Anonymous said...
Everybody would be serving the purpose a lot better it they would just stop wasting time on this ear theory. As the recent NICU nurse has told you people, ears develop over time with newborn babies. Try to be objective and look at the shape the ear has taken on in areas where there is a similarity. Then go look at lots of ears and see how the ear can be used for identification nearly as reliably as finger prints. Then note the similarities where gurfen thinks there shouldn't be any. For fukk sake you lemmings, think for yourselves for a change!

But beyond all that, why does anybody want there to be more than one baby? What the hell difference does it all make. The fact of the matter that too many people on these blogs refuse to accept is that there is no doubt that Palin wasn't pregnant and also no doubt that Bristol took a hike to auntie's house to hide her pregnancy.

So now all that's lacking is someone to come out and tell the truth for Palin and get her out of her mess she's created for herself. Well folks, that's not going to happen but what is going to happen is that the truth is going to come out in the next few days and it's not going to come from Palin's enemies. Now go see Laura and wait patiently.

Viola

6/7/2011 06:28:43

God's Little Helper, I totally love you.

So the switcheroo that Tillie outlines is all because that Sarah had to wait until May to "give birth." Why was that? To have enough time to appear pregnant? To have enough time to hit the important appearances she wanted to make?

So the RNC was the real Trig? And Ruffles was just a stand-in? And what I wrote above is true, that people don't always recognize a baby when it's young or know it's age. After a while, what would a few months be in Trig's age?

Now, What about Dar Miller, Pastor Randall and Doris Bjerken, Pastor Paul Trissel and wife Pam . . .

Viola

6/7/2011 06:34:02

Sow discord? God's Little Helper simply confirmed what Tillie hypothesized-- and what Tille writes is one of the first theories that actually sounds plausible. Brad,why do you doubt the voice, which I think sounds quite genuine. I write voices as a living, and I know how hard it is to make up one that sounds like a real person speaking. GLH has that sound to me.

6/7/2011 06:38:38

Laura, Any truth to GLH's claim about your upcoming blog post?

Brad Scharlott

6/7/2011 06:47:20

GLH, in my last conversation with Laura, commented that some seemingly anti-Palin sites were in fact pro-Palin and were gathering names and url's to be used later in libel suits. That was a attempt to scare people away. GLH is playing a strange game. The "voice" may be authentic, but that does mean he/she is truthful. I would avoid.

Banyan

6/7/2011 06:50:11

Here is what the NICU nurse actually (and correctly) said on IM (contrary to the assertions of the" god's little helper" clone cited above in the post by SLQ (and, thank you SLQ for noting the resemblance to glh!):
***

I'm a NICU nurse - here's some comments about the development of the ear (reposted here):

PREMATURE INFANT EAR
DEVELOPMENT
Part of the process of determining gestational age can be made by
examining the level of development of the external ear of the
newborn. Before 34 weeks, the cartilage is not present in any part
of the ear, and the pinna is flat, formless and remains folded. At
34 to 37 weeks, the pinna will be curved, soft, and able to recoil.
At 37 to 40 weeks, the pinna will be fully formed, firm, and able to
recoil instantly. After 40 weeks, there will be thick cartilage, and ear will be stiff."

You can tell a huge difference in developmental age based on many areas, including the ears. The biggest thing to note is that the structure of the ear does not fundamentally change. At very premature ages, the consistency is almost like a thin pie crust - very pliable and movable (but it doesn't break like a pie crust). As the child approaches term (37-40 weeks), it thickens and becomes larger, but does not change shape. We use it to gauge gestation based on how moveable the pinna is. By the time an infant is ready to be discharged, this process is concluded. Sometimes on very premature infants, the ear becomes wrinkled or folded due to problems in positioning. This is because it is so thin that it folds on itself. By the time they go home, this is not possible, due to the thickening of the cartilage.

lilly lily

6/7/2011 06:52:34

The implication by other posters who may or may not know what is going down, that Sarah will come up with a new scenario to portray herself as a martyr and saint. She then divorces Todd for his part in the Trig fraud.

I always figured that sooner or later she will put out another version of the Wild Ride. Very heartwarming stuff for her cult following.

She then goes can go to Darfur, with Franklin Graham , a Sister Teresa with her female sidekick Greta van S.. reporting the exclusive nitty gritty of administering to the starving inhabitants with her famous cookies and boxes of toys and religious fluff?

A American soap opera, and her cult following will eat it up lie after lie.

Brad Scharlott

6/7/2011 06:53:48

I am reposting here what I wrote before about GLH's attempt to scare with libel notions:

Nice try, God's little helper! A libel suit would entail "discovery," court-ordered fact-finding and depositions under oath. That's the last thing Palin would ever want in this matter.

Brad Scharlott

6/7/2011 07:01:51

GLH: Laura and I do have a post coming out in a few days, but there is no scoop regarding Bristol or Keith. Sounds like you're trying to drive people away from this site because when her scoop is not forthcoming, folks will be mighty disappointed, won't they.

You need to go help elsewhere.

Laura Novak link

6/7/2011 07:03:41

Listen closely people:

I do NOT, repeat, do NOT have a scoop or a special story coming in a few days.

I know nothing about Bristol or Keith or anyone else.

I am in the same boat as the rest of you.

I am NOT pro Palin.

I am NOT collecting email addresses.

I have NO life traffic feed on this site, if you notice, and so no one knows where anyone else is.

But if you get the idea that I am collecting information or that I have a scoop coming that then never materializes, well then, you might go somewhere else to read.

IF and when I have a scoop to tell, then I'll let you know.

Otherwise, people troll sites to stir up shit and make it sound as if I have inside knowledge. Which I don't.

Brad Scharlott knows what we are working on. No one else.

Palintologist

6/7/2011 07:04:18

God's Little Helper sounds like "Sarah's Little Shit Disturber"

god's little helper
Tue, 07 Jun 2011 12:09:27
Attagirl Tillie, now we're starting to make some progress. Most of what you say is right on the money! Not because you made a good guess but because you know. And you also know what's not true dont' you dear. Anyway, doesn't matter a bit.

So folks, it's nearly party time! Tillie's telling us that within the next few days when the media timing is right and they have the camoflage issue going hot and heavy, the bad people are going to spill their guts. Thereby once and for all getting rid of this irritation of Sarah faking for Bristol which really shouldn't have erupted into this great big clusterfukk over Sarah's honesty.

Then FINALLY Sarah can get on to more important business which everybody is so anxiously waiting for.

I predict that Laura is about to have a blog post that will make the last one with over 500 look like a walk in the park by Bristol and Keith. Please do bear in mind though, that you're going to get a story of the faked pregnancy but you're not going to get the whole sordid shit. That's for another day. My other little helper will be lettin ya know on that one.

So how do ya think it's going to work out for ya so far Sarah?

OzMud link

6/7/2011 07:07:41

Two thoughts :)

First: The photo of Mercede holding the bub in Sarah's kitchen - I would have been Mercede's size at that age and that is exactly how my 5 lb son fit in my arms at around a month old. It occurs to me that if, as the doctor says, the two photos could be explained due to the DS trait of being poor feeders, wouldn't losing close to or more than a pound in less than two weeks have seen him hospitalized?

The photo in the hospital corridor looks as if Gramma has her hand full literally, and she would be grabbing onto baby, not blanket and the bubs head is above the crook of the arm as opposed to beneath it in the Mercede photo. Two completely different sized bubs in my book.

Second: The busty photo of Bristol - My son's first month wads spent in NICU while I triapsed back and forth to the hospital to deliver my milk was fed to him through a tube until he was strong enough to breastfeed. The entire time I battled swollen, leaky breasts. When I left the house I had to stuff kotex pads into a binding around my breasts so I wouldn't leak all over the place in public.

Bristol looks as if she's padded to the max - exactly what a young nursing mum would do if she needed to be in public for any length of time without being able to feed. Look how out of proportion her dress is - it actually looks painful.

comeonpeople

6/7/2011 07:14:29

There is no way for Palin to possibly spin positively at this point with a confession. There is just too much information on hand: video, transcripts, eyewitnesses, people who spent thousands of dollars to listen to her screech wherein she played out her whole Tri-G fantasy again and again and again. This was one of her many fatal mistakes that will make this hoax terminal for her. Had she just shut up about it she COULD get a pass. No, without Tri-G there was no Palin VP candidate. He is part of her brand. I'd venture to say he is the SOLE reason any of us even know of this freak. There is no putting this genie back in the bottle.
Gotta go find the Tillie comments. I missed them. Is Tillie Sarah's old college rooommate? If they are collecting URLs do we get to talk with Dr Baldwin Johnson? I'd just love to have a sit down with her, medical colleague to colleague!!!!

viola

6/7/2011 07:14:59

My apologies, Brad. I'm sure you have much more experience with trolling and its vagaries. I get sucked in by wanting this to end and by believing it may not end in a neat, tidy way. And I'm always afraid that the truthbearers may be frightened off or may not be of the character we want them to be.

SLQ

6/7/2011 07:20:53

FWIW, I have a very hard time decipering what exactly "God's Little Helper" is trying to say in any given post. Presuming the IM anon poster this morning is GLH, he/she seems to be saying two different things.

In GLH's comment here, the idea was that Laura would post a bombshell, which would be helping Palin to tell a sanitized version of the truth. But on IM, Anon says the bombshell from Laura will be the real deal and Palin WON'T be able to sanitize it.

This seems to be more reason to be cautious about what GLH says. Just my two cents.

There does seem to be a storm brewing, however, if the comments on this blog and on IM are any indication.

Ms.Kat

6/7/2011 07:30:15

Hey Viola:

I think the Palinbots jumped on Vanity Fair's mis-identification of the onstage baby because it was a way for them to undercut the validity of the entire article.

But journalist Gross simply assumed what anyone in the audience would assume: the baby in the carriage that Piper is pushing is Trig. Logically, who else would it be?

I bring it up because it's the only insight I have into the possible reason why there have been at least two Trigs in circulation, Ruffles and RNC. What if Trig is not a child in the normal sense of the word, but a political prop? Not a new concept, I know, but what if that's *all* he's ever been?

What I'm suggesting is that Palin didn't suddenly become "pregnant" to cover up for the politically embarrassing misdeeds of her family (whether Bristol, Willow, Track, Todd, Chuck or some unholy coupling of some of the above). I'm suggesting that after the cruise ship Neo-Cons came courting, Palin saw the possibility of a spot on the national stage. A door was opening. And she decided to make herself as appealing as she possibly could to the Evangelical right, and therefore irresistible to the mainstream GOP. And so she found a way to procure (buy?) the ultimate Christianist political symbol, her very own special needs baby.

Why are there two babies? Maybe the first one didn't work out. I don't know. I suspect that buying babies is a messy business.

Crazy? Maybe. But no crazier than anything else. Again, I think this is all about Palin's hunger for power.

DebinOH

6/7/2011 07:41:28

GLH has been spreading crazy talk for the past couple days or so. I think it is a bot toying with us. Up is down, down is sideways, and most of it is something that SP herself doesn't even know.

comeonpeople - the thing you fail to realize is that in the born-again movement they truly believe that the devil is messing with her family so that she can't run. May sound crazy to you but been there done that. They won't care what she says about it. On C4P they have discussed it at some point and thought it would be noble of her if she faked a pregnancy to protect Bristol.

Her followers wouldn't believe HER if she told them she was satan and proved she was satan. They are blind and dumb. Sort of sounds like someone who wrote Blind Allegiance. They are the real koolaid drinkers. Who else would give this woman money to do anything she wants with it?

We could scream from the rooftops that she would destroy our country and give them proof that everything she does is for her and her only. How many freakin' video clips of her lying? Tons and yet they are able to excuse everyone of them. They live in a different reality than us and they don't care! Seriously, you would have to have an IQ of 30 not to see her for what she is.

comeonpeople

6/7/2011 08:11:16

@DebInOh:
I was raised in a catholic charismatic house. I know all about this shit, prayer warriors, praying over people, praying in tongues, demonic attacks. The catholic charismatic movement pretty much died out because 1) it attracted the fringe and they disenfranchised the regular catholics, normal ones , looking for a better different form of spirituality. (talk about grifting losers. I know from grifting losers) 2) The area I lived in was urban with alot of educated people that realized it was cuckoo. It is all but dead in my urban area.
Anyway, I think it will be a smaller minority of the followers who will remain with her in this. There are intelligent educated born-agains who will see the crazy for what it is.

Leona

6/7/2011 08:33:53

My 2 cents:
1. I noticed that Bristol was attentive to the baby in her arms at the RNC in 2008, very tender, very responsible. Maybe she is the baby's sister, maybe she is the baby's mother.
2. The dress Bristol wore at the RNC in 2008 was something chosen FOR her by someone. It was not the style Bristol would have chosen for herself, based on other styles she wore before and after that event. Had she worn something looser, and with a pattern in the material, she could easily have concealed her pregnancy and her enlarged breasts. Was she both pregnant and lactating at the same time? Maybe. Anyway, I think she herself would have chosen clothing that would not have drawn attention to her breasts and her abdomen.
3. Re: Ruffles. Cathy Baldwin Johnson, the MD who supposedly delivered Trig, works at a high-risk clinic for teens. Perhaps she had the opportunity to supply a newborn, albeit a newborn with serious malformation to the outer ear, for the inevitable pictures that would be taken at the baby shower and at home with Mercede and Levi.
4. Sarah Palin herself is a pathological liar and is vindictive to the core. She would do anything, including embarass her own children, just to present herself as a heroine.

ginny

6/7/2011 08:37:02

Not to be annoying, but Brad, what do you think about my previous comment that the "hole" in the ear of baby-shower "Ruffles" is not really a hole? It most struck me once I saw the new Ruffles pic from Bailey's book posted over at IM. This baby does appear to be older, and more plump, but the ruffled ear is there. But, with the different angle on the ear, you can now clearly see that it was not a hole! You are the photo expert, so I'd love to hear what you think. Thanks!

god's little helper

6/7/2011 09:05:34

Laura and Brad, how stupid are you people? Did I predict that you would be coming out with a post in a few days that would tell all or did I suggest that you would perhaps be enabled in a few days to tell all?.

Laura, if you haven't had a mother to son with Brad yet on what you know then I suggest you do it now. What you know about me that is, granted it's not a lot but it is a bit more than I've given you permission to talk about on your blog at the moment.

Or don't Laura, because if you can't handle this properly then that's fine too. Nothing is going to stop the landslide that is coming.

Frankly Laura, after your indiscretions here I don't even have the inclination to contact you privately anymore, and certainly not to compromise my own position with you or Brad. Have a nice day.

6/7/2011 09:21:14

I am curious... god's little helper. why are you choosing this blog to divulge the information? Is it going to be before the "landslide" that is coming? Do you think that the entire truth will eventually come out? Does Sarah know who you are?

CA Guy

6/7/2011 09:23:28

GLH: how utterly vainglorious of you ! Your little world is certainly your of your own making. The entire point of Laura's venture is to stay within the confines of professional journalism. Your "permission to talk about..." comment boarders on megalomania. Probably best to go play elsewhere.

Banyan

6/7/2011 09:26:19

Two fascinating recent posts from IM to share with all of you:

East Coast S said...

Hello everyone, I have some opinions I thought I might pass along, and while they are "just" my opinions, I do have the advantage of years in neonatal care and research to form the basis and structure for my thoughts.

I admit to not really paying attention to the "two babies" theory. When Gryphen first posted it, I didn't even read it. Over the next weeks and months, I did of course see multiple comments referencing two babies and "ruffles".

I usually just skim the comments anyway as I've been really busy this last year traveling for work. I noted the occasional mentions of "batwing shapes" and "cauliflourr ear"...and as a medical professional (RN LIII NICU 18 years, CCRN LIII NICU 7 years) who has authored numerous articles and given several keynote presentations concerning the advancement of care and treatment for micropreemies via skin to skin therapy, among other things...I admit I felt a bit of smug superiority: This is just silly, everyone knows premature infants are prone to undeveloped or underdeveloped cartilage- I can't believe they are thinking this sufficient to even SUGGEST two babies!

And here is where I put my tail between my legs and apologize to Mr. Griffin as well as the readers here. Today when I saw the post referencing Two Babies, I decided to go back and read it.

To say I am "stunned" would be saying Sarah Palin has "a bit of an ego"; it's a massive understatement.

I had incorrectly assumed the ear "deformity" was a minor and possibly self-repairing issue such as folded ear. Seeing the photos today almost literally took my breath away. That child's ear has a major, severe degree helixical malformation which (and I believe this to have a high degree of medical certainty) can only be repaired when the child is much older, YEARS older, and has significantly larger amounts of cartilage as a support base.

This is not "cauliflour ear" or "folded ear" or some vague defect which can be attributed to prematurity. Google some preemie photos, even babies on the very cusp of viability (22-24 weeks gestational age) and you will see tiny, tiny ears, sometimes seeming paper thin or impossibly red-- but still perfectly shaped.

I would categorize this defect as severe. There is not enough base material to splint or pin the ear; were a parent to choose vanity over safety and locate a pediatric ENT who WAS willing to forsake his oath and all sound medical basis for delaying treatment...the results of any type of corrective procedure on a baby this small with such a severe defect would yield a horrible result...the tissue might be stretched enough to make more of an ear but it would be pitted and crimped so badly it would likely appear worse than when started.

I cannot of course say it's "impossible". There are always going to be odd medical maladies and issues which simply can't be explained. But given the severe nature of the defect, the perfect ears of 'convention baby', the extremely dissimilar facial features of the infants, and the complete lack of medical evidence relating to ANY child born on ANY date...I would say in this case it CAN be explained: easily so- by the existence of (at least) two infants having been presented as Trig Palin.
1:43 PM

East Coast S said...

I also meant to touch on this issue-- while it doesn't directly connect to the helix defect, I think it might be germane to the overall theory of more than one infant having been called Trig.

The infant being presented as Trig in the photos from early May 2008 (a 12-14 day old preemie, correct?) cannot be the large, extremely developed infant of the 2008 campaign photos. That's a time differential of approximately sixteen weeks between photos. A fragile, sallow, slim to the point of nearly appearing malnourished infant cannot transform into what can only be described as a 'hulking' twenty pound bruiser without benefit of much more time than 16-18 weeks. I'm sure there will be someone who says "FOUL! I had a five pound preemie who weighed 19 pounds by his 12 week well-baby visit!" ...but my point is that is MANY years of working with premature infants in three different metro-city hospitals...the one and ONLY time I have seen an infant gain such a substantial amount of weight in a short time was due to a tiny baby having a huge, multiple arterially compromised sacrococcygeal teratoma. Of course once the bulk of it was removed, he no longer had such a drastic weight gain on paper. Even babies who are so sick with liver and kidney issues, whose poor bellies and faces and extremities rapidly retain fluid...do not go through such a marked transformation.

Just consider...have you ever heard of a baby quadrupling his birth weight in four months? If that actually happened, we'd be seeing all manner of 20-40 pound four month olds!

It normally takes two months of "out time" to surpass each month of prematurity. And I should point out that

curiouser

6/7/2011 09:29:48

JJ - The 'ear' controversy seems to drive Sarah crazy. It may be a coincidence but there was enormous backlash from the Palinbots when Gryphen first posted the info and they made a massive effort to discredit him on Palingates. Some regular blog readers bought into it. Remember that Sarah has paid staff, and not just fans, who troll the blogs.

Banyan

6/7/2011 09:30:25

(post above continued)...

Just consider...have you ever heard of a baby quadrupling his birth weight in four months? If that actually happened, we'd be seeing all manner of 20-40 pound four month olds!

It normally takes two months of "out time" to surpass each month of prematurity. And I should point out that is in the BEST case scenario; many babies do not place on the curve until well into toddler age.

If Trig was born 2-3 month premature, he would need 6-8 weeks of out time (at least) to surpass the deficiencies from every 2-4 weeks of prematurity. Of course this is a generalization, but it's an extremely common and accepted one- it's one of the reasons why we use "adjusted age" for the first year of life in most preemies. Another common one- many preemies go home around their original estimated due date. (this only refers to release from NICU to step-down or home- NOT having surpassed all the issues associated with prematurity)

My point is this: if a hundred people took one of the baby shower photos and one of the convention photos and emailed them to a random pediatrician or neonatologist whom you found online...and asked them how long it would take for baby A to "turn into" baby B...I will eat my hat if ONE of them says less than eight months.

Ear issues notwithstanding, that child at the convention is twice the age they are saying he was at that point. I would bet my career on it.
2:13 PM

6/7/2011 09:39:59

curiouser
I am sure part of the reason that the "ear" controversy drives her crazy is that she thought that she had been very careful (scrubbed Mercede's computer and made her take the myspace down, covered the baby's ears, etc), and that it is absolute concrete visual proof of some sort of hoax. I got the feeling that when Gryphen posted the "two babies" post that someone had clued him in to checking out the ear discrepancies - I don't think he noticed that himself. I have always wondered who his source was..

lilly lily

6/7/2011 09:54:14

One of the posters, Ginny, seems to think the hole is a shadow.

No way is it a shadow.

It is a hole.

Palinbots are everywhere that anyone who has a negative opinion of Palin and a following for their blog.

I read a Palinbot complaining that Steve Colbert, (in his Paul Revere re-enactment on a motorized horse with a powder horn, musket and bell) is not a REAL man with a real job because he wears a suit. LOL.

Another comment asked if that was Todd complaining.

You can expect all kinds of diversionary and peculiar commentators.

Business insider had someone in the comments, claiming to be a medical student in Alaska in 2007 saying he saw (examined?) a gravid Sarah Palin and saw medical data on Trig back in 2007.

Of course he can't say more, blah, blah, blah..

6/7/2011 09:58:21

GLH, I trust Laura and Brad.

It is possible that the fake pregnancy will be revealed in those emails Friday. But I've had my hopes up too many times in the last 2.75 years to count on anything.

lilly lily

6/7/2011 10:17:00

Incidently the Medical School in Anchorage accepts 20 students per year, so anyone trying to find who the man (physician?) who claims he examined a Gravid Sarah Palin, saw her ultrasounds and measured serial fundal heights could be tracked down.

Especially as he moved to the East Coast and says he is doing a family practice residency there.

He certainly is a bit suspect in my books, but who knows. Doctors are usually circumspect with good reason.

Perhaps it will be someone equally careless and bragging who he saw, who will blast this story wide open.

6/7/2011 10:56:20

Not a new thought, I've seen it elsewhere, but what jumps out at me is the glaring discrepancy between the "shower photos" that show a tiny/fragile Trig(1) in May and the photo in Bailey's book that shows a very chubby-faced Trig, also dated May 2008. Easiest solution that I see is to change the chronology of the photos: shower in February or March, "birth presentation" in April, Bailey photos (two) in May and June. No need, then, for a two-baby scenario through June of 2008. In any case the Bailey photos debunk the theories that Trig(1) was frail and did not survive, leaving Palin to scramble to find a stand-in. If there was a swap it must have been after June.

PS. to Laura: you'll note something about this message. I will explain shortly.

Ottoline

6/7/2011 10:56:21

Conscious at last: you say: <i>"We must understand that there are clear indications the Palins and their ilk lived a polygamous and polyandrous life."</i>

What do you mean? What "clear indications"? I am not aware of anything concrete between the Johnstons and the Palins.

Karen

6/7/2011 10:56:28

Is GLH the same poster as "Wholy Mary"?

ginny

6/7/2011 10:56:58

lilly lilly, I am not a bot. I am not a troll. I am a long-time and regular reader and commenter on all of blogs critical of SP, including IM (not so much there anymore), Palin Deceptions (caught that one at it's end), Palingates, Bree Palin's blog, Politicalgates, Malia Litman's, Palin's Peyton Place, Ennealogic's, Frank's, and others that I can't think of just now. My username has always been ginny. Patrick can vouch for me, I've emailed him privately as well as donated to Palingates back when he still ran that blog.
I DO think there were two babies, and I DO think that Ruffles had a deformity that could not have just "worked itself out". But unless I see another and/or a better pic showing the "hole" other than the baby shower pic, I simply think that part of the deformity is not real.

Palintologist

6/7/2011 10:57:33

O/T
Since Sarah is moving to Arizona, will that make her the "High Plains Grifter"

lisanTx

6/7/2011 11:03:31

ginny--

I think that there is no hole in front of the ear. Instead, to me it looks like the cartridge from the anti-tragus (bottom part) simply overlaps the edge of the helix a tiny bit. What appears somewhat like a "hole" is the space between the tragus (which is tiny), the anti-tragus and the beginning of the helix, I believe.

The baby on Sarah's shoulder on the IM post and in Bailey's book and the 10/18 baby shown above have a similar shaped ear as the shower baby; it is just somewhat larger. The tragus and other parts are growing and thus what looks like a hole disappears.

The 10/2 baby has a similar but not identical ear.

Karen

6/7/2011 11:04:59

Laura,
A few days ago when WM was posting about the things that you "knew" (such as his or her location) but supposedly did not have permission to share "at this point," I had commented (as Anon) that I thought you and he were in contact. This post was the impetus for your first "Let me be perfectly clear" comment. I felt bad that I had misinterpreted and was the cause of the clarification and sorry if I misled some of your readers. This poster's comments, like WM, give the impression, again, that you and he are in contact with one another. I see that is not the case. The tone creeps me out.

ginny

6/7/2011 11:12:19

lisanTx, you said that so much better than me! Your description is what I was trying to say. Thanks for clarifying!

Conscious at last

6/7/2011 11:14:07

@ Ottoline:

1- Palingates has at least one post about the questionable paternity of at least one of the Palin children (Track)

2- It is fairly well known that both Sarah and Todd had extra-marital relationships.
Look for info in Brad Hanson, Shailey Tripp and others

3- Look at the divorce of the Johnstons and what came before it.

All of the above is documented in blogs and newspapers. There has also been much commentary on the blogs which I cannot substantiate, but which suggests further such activities.

I want to state, clearly, how uncomfortable I am speaking about this.
I don't want to be involved in this type of discussion at all AND I am NOT judging any of this. I am simply repeating what is public information in an attempt to make sense out of a hoax
that has infected our body politic.

Floyd M. Orr link

6/7/2011 11:17:49

Palintologist, I think you are confusing Scottsdale with Lubbock, but kudos for your cleverness.

Laura & Brad, I am really impressed with the two new commenters at IM calling themselves East Coast S and NICU Nurse. If there is any way you can encourage more participation from them, please do so!

viola

6/7/2011 11:28:23

Tillie, I reread your post and still like your scenario. It is the first time I've heard a story where the pieces seem to fit (two babies, a non-newborn being posed as one). For those of you who are squeamish about personal details, it had none of that, just a "what if" that fits the facts that we know-- including now that Ruffles is most definitely not Trig, as proven by Doc above and by "East Coast's" comment on IM. Thanks!

6/7/2011 11:41:09

Viola, I still like the Tillie scenario too. So Sarah borrowed Ruffles to fool Mercede and Levi when they came over to visit. Or maybe just Mercede, because how could Levi not know that Bristol gave birth to Trig? I am still trying to figure out what each knows....

curiouser

6/7/2011 12:19:05

lilly lilly - I can't imagine any situation in which Sarah would allow a med student, or anyone other than her own doctor, to examine her.

Conscious at last

6/7/2011 12:25:47

Re: Borrowed Babies

@ JJ- Yes I have the same question- how could Levi not know who "Ruffles" is?

That is why I feel that, perhaps, the simpler explanation might be that Ruffles IS the baby that Bristol gave birth to late in 2007 or early in 2008.

The Matsu hallway baby might have been borrowed.

I know that Tillie has her reasons for believing that the dates are correct on the Triggybear photos, but I am still not confident in those dates.

But...now that I'm thinking, it is possible that by May, Ruffles was still fragile, but able to emerge from the NICU. My head is spinning!

6/7/2011 12:27:17

I hereby retract my earlier suggestion. I hadn't read all of the other posts when I wrote it, in particular Tillie's noting that the dates of the shower photos have been well established. The rest of Tillie's post is most interesting as well. A couple of thoughts to add:
1) Maybe the Wild Ride wasn't wild at all. (Didn't anon@432 suggest this?) Maybe Palin announced a due date of May, planning all along to present her "preemie" in April, just as soon as that all-important Texas speech was in the bag. Dolt that Palin is, maybe she figured it would be no problem to pass off a two-month old preemie (real) Trig as a preemie newborn -- but then discovered otherwise;
2) Reading Tillie's theory, I first wondered why, if the theory were true, Palin wouldn't substitute the real Trig before June, when the later of the two Bailey photos were taken. But, assuming the real Trig is Bristol's, maybe she was nursing him, so Palin needed a bottle-fed stand-in for occasions when she was going to be out? (Yes, you can pump breastmilk and feed it to a baby from a bottle, but maybe there were limits to Bristol's cooperation.)

Leona

6/7/2011 12:29:56

Some questions:
1. Where is Ruffles?
2. How old was the baby that Bristol was holding at the RNC in September of 2008? (That baby looked to me to be at least 6 months old, if born at full term. Had the baby been born at ca. 37 weeks gestation in mid-April, then he/she would have been much more likely to resemble a 3 month old. Babies with Down Syndrome are typically poor feeders and there might be growth problems associated with poor feeding.)
3. How was it that the baby at the RNC was so quiet? Not a peep, ever, no fussing, no crying...not quite what one would expect from an infant. Were there drugs on board to keep the baby quiet?

alexis

6/7/2011 12:31:46

@curiouser

I think we can all rest assure that the so called "medical student" who posted on business insider was probably sarah after she had bristol google some medical terms.

alexis

6/7/2011 12:41:39

@leona

I think I can answer question number #3

Most likely the baby was given some type of sedative like nyquil( it causes drowsiness).

I even noticed when bristol did early interviews with tripp he was awfully quiet aswell

anonfornow

6/7/2011 13:06:01

I think clues to the identities of the two (or three) babies can be found in observing the emotions shown by the Palins to the various infants. The Trig at the Convention is obviously Bristol's baby, as shown by her tenderness towards it. Levi also believes this baby to be his.

As for the baby in the kitchen, I don't see Bristol displaying the same maternal tenderness; she is posing. However, I suspect Levi and Mercede believe the baby to be Trig.

As for why there are two or more babies, one possible explanation is that Sarah simply did not want to be bothered continuing with the pregnancy hoax and so decided to deliver "early." But Trig (born very early and/or with multiple problems) was not ready to be released from the hospital yet, or else he was too large to pass off as a premature new born, and so a substitute was "borrowed." A slightly older, larger baby was used at first, in the Mat-Su and for the trip to Sarah's office. Then, for the shower and the presentation to the Johnstons, Ruffles was used.

At some point, the real Trig was brought home and the need for the substitute babies ended, particularly as time passed and people's ability to judge size blurred. We really have very, very few photos of the baby from early May until early September. (that unseen lump in the nursing sling doesn't count--I don't believe Sarah hauled the baby around Alaska with her, but simply a doll.)

I have always thought the baby at the Convention was huge, even before I saw the sickly little tyke in the Tirggybear photos. So, no need for something sinister. Just Sarah being Sarah.

silver

6/7/2011 13:12:03

The picture of Sarah with the baby in the Frank Bailey book, dated May 2008, where she's reviewing the 2008 budget capital requests, it looks as if she's wearing the same jacket with the rolled up sleeves and has her hair down the same way as in the Gusty video interview of the last day of the legislative session on April 13, 2008. I'm wondering if the picture was actually taken in April instead of May. If it's the same jacket you'd think she'd be tired of wearing it for such a long time.

KMiller

6/7/2011 13:21:42

Who Knows posted: http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/palin-daughter-baby.jpg

Although it is dressed in blue, this is the baby with the more delicate features I think may have been a girl. She(?) also is missing the very noticeable tongue thrust which is in visible in almost every picture of the child we know as "Trig" today.

6/7/2011 13:22:54

Interesting discussion. I am glad more people are investigating this fraud - rock on Brad and Laura, and don't worry about the trolling. Most of us appreciate posts that we read with our very own eyes and trollers for years have been trying to get us frustrated & angry at blog owners by SCREAMING "see, s/he lied and didn't post what was promised". Anything to stop the truth I suppose. For some reason I don't think the Sarah Palin Faked a Pregnancy train is stopping. Can you imagine the word salad when she tries to explain this one?

SLQ

6/7/2011 13:24:49

Laura, I just wanted to clarify that I never thought you were "mining" data or anything like that. These bots seem so bent on diversion and deception that I was wondering if one of the commenters was somehow able to do that. As I said before, I'm sorry I took the bait they were throwing out.

Thanks for all your hard work on getting this issue out into the open.

SLQ

6/7/2011 13:28:54

Silver, that's an interesting thought. I'm wondering if the picture was actually taken in April instead of May. If it's the same jacket you'd think she'd be tired of wearing it for such a long time.

If that's the case, notice all the extra fabric on the shoulder/upper arm. Is this space formerly taken up by the shoulder padding on an empathy belly?

KMiller

6/7/2011 13:35:34

"GLH: how utterly vainglorious of you ! Your little world is certainly your of your own making. The entire point of Laura's venture is to stay within the confines of professional journalism. Your "permission to talk about..." comment boarders on megalomania. Probably best to go play elsewhere."

"God's Little Helper" sounds like the kind of name a person also calling themself "Trig's Heavenly Father" might make up. Just sayin'.

Jeff

6/7/2011 13:52:12

If you squeeze a pig, it's gonna squeal, and Ms Palin is definitely feeling the squeeze, so reacts the only way she ever has. Sarah screeches, "Wee Wee Wee, I mean ME ME ME!"

She cries "Hey, look at me, I'm the victim here and everyone is telling lies about me and attacking my kids, especially my special-needs son!"

But Sarah, the Twitt-Faced coward won't confront someone directly to their face. Never has. She's scared. Instead, her low-info loyal minions do her dirty-work of screaming and kicking up dust to create a diversion to cover Sarah's own detestable behavior, in hopes that she'll give 'em a doggy-treat or an "atta-boy".

Laura, I've really enjoyed your insightful posts, and I think everyone appreciates your bringing other professionals into these discussions. These pros provide valuable expert analysis and objective opinions that most of us wouldn't be able to be exposed to, otherwise. Providing such a high level of support to the readers tweaks their own thought processes, and the result is the excellent commentary by so many of your readers, who have proven to be quite knowledgeable themselves.

So a big heartfelt thanks to you. Now, go out and do it again tomorrow, and the next day, and the next.

Kudos to all for doing a nice job in dealing with the trolls. Ignore them when you can, because they'll soon get bored pretty quickly and leave. Or, if they hang around very long, they might find that they learn something they didn't know. Nothing wrong with that.

Bobcat Logic

6/7/2011 14:23:03

@"God's Little Helper"

You are beyond transparent to all of us here... so quit intruding on our discussion. Quit bothering Laura, also, too!

And I strongly suggest you get off the uppers. Try something more calming and sedating...

Rest up, get some sleep, have your temporal lobe epilepsy, and its resulting "God's Little Helper" delusions, investigated by a competent neurologist, and, then... maybe... with skilled medical guidance you'll be able to feel better and stop this nonsense.

silver

6/7/2011 14:25:17

SLQ, I questioned that also so checked the picture of Sarah with Gusty in the hallway and also the "3 Amigo" picture from Audrey's site and there seems to be quite a bit of fabric in the sleeve of the jacket so it could look bunched like that.
http://www.palindeception.com/calendar/days/041308.html

Ottoline

6/7/2011 15:29:05

Silver and SLQL -- pls go to the Palingates Weds OT thread and read the Amy1 post that starts ANOTHER NEW WRINKLE and pls comment if it makes any sense to you. I'd love for Brad to take a look too. Says the Gusty pix and the Bailey office pic of SP and baby might have been shot on the same day. ??

6/7/2011 15:45:49

I know that many here are piqued by the posts from GLH. I'm not because I find his posts too confusing to follow and he seems angrier with Laura than with Sarah.

But I would like to know (as another poster asked) if Wholy Mary and GLH could be the same person. I don't think so, but I'd like to know because despite a few internal contradictions on Wholy Mary's part (and I can easily imagine that a quick-typing poster could make a few internal contradictions) there are a few aspects which intrigued me. First, she was addressing Sarah through the posts - telling Sarah to stop now. And Sarah's bus tour *did* stop. Second, she indicated that she would stop posting here and as far as I can tell, she actually did. So, are there any other reasons based on IP addresses to doubt the veracity of her posts?

alexis

6/7/2011 15:51:11

@Ottoline

I just had a look at the pics. I agree with Amy1 that the gusty pix was a staged photo and was NOT take in april as stated.

And her styling in the baily office pic does seem similar....

Does look like she had the RNC styling help in those pics

SLQ

6/7/2011 15:55:27

Ottoline, I did go look at that post (I think it's the Tues OT thread).

I really don't know what to say about that post and the photos. It certainly does look possible they were taken on the same day or at least around the same time.

I do think Frank's/Jeanne's use of that photo is very interesting. The ear looks similar to Ruffles/Triggybear, but not identical, and this baby's face looks very different from any other, though perhaps because it's squished in sleep. The cheeks look much more like Tripp. I can't forget the "Trig was Tripp before he was Trig" business from IM.

My brain is not computing yet another level of confusion, though, so I'm going to ponder it a bit. It's too late tonight to make any sense of it, if that's even possible.

6/7/2011 16:02:13

If the Palins borrowed a baby, could that be the "puppy is ready" in the emails? I've wondered about that because if Trig were at home and sufficiently healthy, then his availability would be obvious and not need confirmation.

And again, if the Palins borrowed a baby, could this be one of the situations where they feel that their defenses are weak? Nearly everyone who has been identified as "in the know" or with "hard information" has strong reasons to keep silent ... financial, professional reputation, medical ethics, or even threats to themselves or their families.

However, a borrowed baby may be a weak point in their defenses. Someone may know who Ruffles is and have enough hard proof to finally make a difference. And that person may be someone less easily blackmailed.

Ottoline

6/7/2011 16:16:30

SLQ and Silver -- thx for responding. Yes, let's let this idea cook a little, to figure out its weak points.

Amanda

6/7/2011 17:14:29

Like many others here, I have been following this story off and on since August 2008. I was skeptical at first, but have become more and more convinced that Palin was not pregnant in 2007-2008. Until today I felt she was covering for a pregnancy in the family, either to protect a child or to advance her political situation, and that the Wild Ride story was a tall tale that kind of got away on her.

This post about the ears caused me to go back and read the IM post on the same subject. I had skipped over it before because the notion of there being two babies seemed bizarre. However, the medical opinion presented by you, Laura, is pretty persuasive. I was also struck by a commenter at IM, who noted that the baby in the photo taken at the VP debate has had a haircut, while the baby in the photo taken just two weeks later clearly has not. That evidence seems unassailable to me.

I am now reasonably convinced that there were at least two babies being presented as Trig, and that completely changes what I believe about this story. It looks to me to be much more calculated than I originally thought. Perhaps it has nothing to do with hiding someone else’s pregnancy. Maybe there is no Trig: there are simply two or more stand-ins being used by Palin as needed to support the story of the DS fetus she chose to carry. The babies might belong to friends, relatives, fellow church-goers, unwed mothers with a CBJ connection – who knows? When they are not on public display, they are living with their real parents or in foster homes. No harm done. Maybe a trust fund has been set up for each of them.

That got me thinking about how this might end. I would not be surprised if Trig were to soon pass away of an undisclosed ailment. I am not suggesting that anyone would actually be harmed: those babies would simply stop appearing as “Trig”, and would get on with their lives. Having faked a birth, Palin could now fake a death. It would work for her on so many levels. She would get sympathy, she would not have to create a storyline for her imaginary child or answer questions about his progress, she would not have to deal with an increasingly more difficult and less endearing living prop, she would not have casting issues, she would still be able to reap the benefit of supposedly having “walked the walk” of a right-to-lifer and, best of all, the skeptics on the subject of Trig’s birth would be silenced. The questions raised by blogs such as this one would be viewed as heartless, and there is not a chance that the MSM would ever touch this story.

I can’t believe I just wrote this. It seems ridiculous, but entirely plausible at the same time.

silver

6/7/2011 17:35:12

Ottoline and SLQ, the video with Gusty addressing the controversy of the Babygate issue is still online. It also includes footage of the day Sarah and Todd showed off Baby Trig, starting at about 1:45 min.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzyZkl4GyrM&playnext=1&list=PL1248D77B11BB66D5

I'm going to ponder this too and look forward to hearing what others think.

silver

6/7/2011 17:57:31

In Frank Bailey's book, the baby that Bristol is holding looks like it has more delicate features than the one Sarah is holding. It's difficult to tell but from the profile the lips don't seem to be the same. Both pictures are dated May 2008.

K.M.R

6/7/2011 19:41:59

I've slept on some of the ideas being tossed about...
I applaud Laura for her efforts in getting to the truth. The same gratefulness goes out to all who have contributed here and on other blogs, books and/or papers, both past and present.

I'm not certain about any of the scenarios that have been presented (some make more sense than others), probably because they don't gel well in my version of reality where children are precious and valued. I think I am speaking not only for myself but for most everyone who has tried to make sense out of what doesn't make much sense on many levels.

The only thing I know for sure is that there is NO WAY I would loan out my child to anyone, especially not a tiny premie baby. Maybe, but not definitely, only to my mother, if I were young and only used to being manipulated for my entire life.

This leaves me feeling, still, that the baby in the May pictures (shower and kitchen) is a child of someone in the family and maybe a twin to a healthier baby (sorry I'm still stuck there) who is a member of the family.

I feel the smaller baby did not fare well. I hope I'm wrong.

Mumimor

6/7/2011 20:58:42

Amanda, I've been thinking exactly the same thing. And yes, it is ridiculous, but in the general logic of this crazy woman, it's absolutely possible.
(Did I write this???? Maybe I need a SP time-out)

Andrew Sullivan linked to this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-worth/the-palinization-of-america_b_871528.html
I guess that is exactly what worries me. Before Bush was elected, lots of people claimed the American people would never elect someone so stupid. But they did, twice. I've even heard people claim that he could impossibly be that ignorant, since he was the president. See where that brought us.

Palin is Bush X 100, plus lies.

Lidia17

6/7/2011 21:48:35

Amanda re. a staged death of Tri-G. No, I would not put that past her. so don’t be embarrassed about getting that kind of feeling about Sarah. She is a sociopath.

My assumption at the outset—back when Palin announced Bristol’s pregnancy to block the rumors about Tri-G being Bristol’s child—was that Palin would announce Bristol’s very sad “miscarriage”. Who knew Bristol would actually appear with Tripp (born who knows when)? Palin doubling-down, or…? I’ve always wondered why Audrey was intimidated into shutting down her blog right around the time that she started investigating Bristol.

People have pointed out that there are extra ‘bot attacks when the issue of multiple babies is floated. I think they know that the baby-switching aspect has left them vulnerable, more vulnerable than the photo evidence of Palin (which lots of people seem happy to ignore).

Ms. Kat, yeah… being Tri-G is like being in Menudo!

K.M.R., “who would lend out their baby?” First, you answered yourself partially already: that some girls are subject to their family’s indoctrination. Secondly, adults are subject to Church indoctrination… there are way too many people who are convinced they are doing “God’s work” doing any number of illegal and immoral things. If you really thought that Sarah was anointed by God to conquer the world against Satan, well… what’s loaning out your baby for a few weeks compared to that?

We have to consider the angle, also, that Sarah has plenty of connections among the “pregnancy crisis centers” (white-baby-mills) in TX, connections to Franklin Graham, connections to Gina Loudon (proud DS-baby procurer), etc. The Tri-Gs could belong to unsuspecting mothers who gave their babies up for adoption, being unable or unwilling to care for a profoundly-handicapped child, or even having been kept unaware of the child’s real issues, for all we know. Sarah and Franklin have enough money to place any child in an institution, if necessary, or at any rate provide for his (their?) care for life. I think Amanda is on the right track with the trust fund idea.

Leona

6/7/2011 22:22:51

Having read Frank Bailey's book, I was struck by how little space he used to describe anything having to do with Bristol, Trig, and Sarah's "pregnancy". Maybe he was not privy to information about any of that, but maybe he does know a lot. How is it that people who may know a whole lot have kept their mouths shut?
Have they been paid? Have they been threatened?
It seems to me that Sarah and Todd's style is to threaten, threaten some more, bully, and bully some some more. When are people who have been trashed by the Palins going to stand up and tell the truth about these frauds, these grifters?

6/7/2011 22:32:09

Faking death is harder than faking a birth. In Palin's case she got away with the fake birth in relative obscurity, as opposed to the scrutiny her actions are getting now. She'd need some officials on board to pull off a hoax, and where is she going to find those? But more generally, births are not part of the public record (somewhat surprisingly), but the Social Security Death Index is public and available. (It's a lot easier to find a dead person than a live one!) I don't believe there's any way to keep oneself off of the list, although I'm not 100% sure.
But, speaking of public records, hasn't a child known as Trig been getting benefits from Alaska? Presumably the state requires actual records for this.

PS. Just wanted to echo my thanks to Laura, and Brad, for providing this forum!

DebinOH

6/7/2011 22:34:05

Leona, I am almost done with Frank Bailey's book and the think that strikes me is that he describes "thinking" and have "nightmares" about her and something she has done or said (or not said). Then in the next breath he wants to be on her team again and in the "know".

My personal opinion - he is like Rebecca Mansour and the rest of the group. They want to be on SP team for jr. high reasons. They have not grown up or have low self esteems or something is wrong with them.

If Bailey had been able to remain in her camp and she hadn't went AWOL he would still be serving the queen. I don't know but I don't feel sorry for him for a minute. He was happy to do the bidding of SP & TP. Quite frankly, if he thought she was so wild and unprepared why was he still so gung-ho on her being the PRESIDENT of the country? I think he is just as nutty as SP in a completely different reason.

I don't mean to sound mean but that is just how I see it. What would he have done if she actually got in? He didn't warn us then......

DebinOH

6/7/2011 22:37:05

Oops - 1st sentence

think = thing

6/7/2011 23:39:02

Laura,

I'd love to have you talk to Dr. Obstetrician(s) about the Mar. 14 totally flat belly photo and see if there is ANY possible explanation other than that she didn't deliver a 6+ pound baby a month later.

I think this is proof. Amy1 and Ottoline think this is proof. But McGinniss and others don't. But no one has explained where the baby could be hiding.

Thanks for entering this field and working hard for the truth.

Who Knows?

6/7/2011 23:39:59

As far as the Gusty line of thought goes, remember Wholy Mary said that Gusty knows.

"Sarah, Todd, Mercede, Sherrey, Willow, Track, Bristol, Levi, Sarah's parents, Frank Bailey, Gusty, Dr. L...., CBJ, and I know."

Also this just may be a "coincidence", or I am reading too much into WM posts, but someone this involved in this tragedy would know how to spell the family members' names.

The misspellings I noticed in Wholy Mary's posts are these:

Johnstone
pregnancey
Sherrey
Johnstones

viola

6/8/2011 00:26:22

Who Knows-- it's a bit elitist to think the world spells and writes and proofreads as carefully as you do. Or that everyone deems it as important as do we smartpantses. Some of my dearest friends send me emails riddled with error, and my own real name is often misspelled, even by people who know me well. WM's comments had the sound of "written voice," which is different than composed rhetoric, and imho, it's very hard to fake.

sjkfromthebellyoftheplane

6/8/2011 00:32:39

awesome stuff. finally some serious attention to the obvious 2 baby deal.

BTW, where IS Trig? certainly not front and center in $arahs life.

molly malone

6/8/2011 00:42:17

If, a WM says, only 15 people know (including WM), then it shouldn't be too hard for the other 14 to figure out who WM is--someone who doesn't know how to spell their names. I'm going to have to raise a skeptical eyebrow.

viola

6/8/2011 00:56:55

If you follow Tillie's scenario above, let me take it a bit further. (Think political thriller) Palin plans to adopt Trig and help out Bristol, for insurance purposes and to "white-out" the event to keep her family squeaky-clean. However, as she tells those close to her, she needs a few months to spread the [fake] pregnancy idea and make it catch. She also needs to go to the meeting in Dallas, because God is calling on her to snag the Republican VP nomination. What difference does it make to her family? To go along with the plan?

Sarah asks CBJ if there is a baby up for a adoption that she can use for a few months, just until folks can see Trig and not easily guess his true age.(CBJ has access to babies from her work with abuse and incest.) So there may even be two babies living at Palin's for a while, or maybe they enlist the help of Dar Miller, to house Ruffles or Trig. Mercede and Levi are in on it, and the photos in the kitchen are STAGED! To promote Ruffle's newbornness and to have a record of Sarah's baby as a newborn. The youngsters go along with it all because they are young, and because they believe it's for a good cause. (Sarah eventually taking over the care of Trig.) Hence, the photo of Levi holding Ruffles with another baby's arm showing. . .

It all makes perfect sense to Sarah, and everyone around her is used to her calling the shots. But what happens is that the McCain team comes in, learns the truth, realizes that photo evidence of two babies (or even more, if CBJ has had to supply several babies) is available-- so they set out to erase it. Too late. Mercede has posted to MySpace. There are shower photos.

Mercede and Levi are bought off, or scared straight by what happens to their mom.

And yes, Ruffles may even be a girl, so the lies are easier. And Ruffles is now adopted by an unsuspecting family who has no idea their baby was used in a political hoax.

For CBJ to come forward, would involve those innocent people and their child. THAT is what keeps her silent.

It was all a silly, amateurish hoax for Sarah's own self-promotion, and now as the lies have grown, innocent people would be hurt by the truth.

Less gothic than other theories, but entirely plausible given what we know about Sarah, her belief in being called, her power in AK, and the outsiderness of Alaskan culture.

DebinOH

6/8/2011 00:59:23

molly - I am with you. I think that it is a bot pulling our leg. The spelling errors, etc. are just like the ones that the bots post everywhere. That or they are trying to cover their ass, but still if so few people know then you are still outing yourself.

I could always be wrong. I guess time will certainly tell (hopefully sooner than later).

KatieAnnieOakley

6/8/2011 01:06:36

Laura

Many blogs have been inundated by the bots (and Palin herself?) last night... unuasually so.

Either the emails being released, or the discussion on multiple blogs about duplicate babies and their ears, WHATEVER - is sending these bots / Palin into an absolutely tizzy; they are afraid.

KatieAnnieOakley - EDIT

6/8/2011 01:18:55

That above word would be unusually - GAH!

Yellowgirl

6/8/2011 01:24:14

While I've never been too convinced of the multiple babies theories, a few thoughts I had while drifting off to sleep last night:

Remember that parade (4th of July 09??) in Alaska where Bristol had Tripp in a double stroller. At the time it seemed odd-- yes, Trig probably used a stroller too, but a double stroller for your baby and brother? Maybe something there....

Also, remember when Tripp was first shown on Greta's show-- he was in that brown overalls outfit (also, too, at the Matt Lauer interview I think). We all commented at the time that it appeared to be a hand-me-down of Trig, b/c Trig was wearing something VERY similar at the RNC. Two things that make one go "hmm" considering the possibility of multiple babies......

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 01:26:11

@ viola

Well what the bleep do I know? How far down the "rabbit hole" are we going?

This tragedy gets more insane by the day.

SLQ

6/8/2011 01:53:23

Who knows: I totally missed Gusty in that list by WM of people that "know." If that's true, that does call into question the timing of the Gusty photo, as well as it's possible staging. If the Gusty photo and the Baily photo in $arah's office were taken on the same day, how very odd (crazy?) to have a 7 month photo taken on the same day as the photo with a baby.

As to the spelling, I'm an excellent speller, and I sometimes still make stupid typos on these comments. On the ones I can edit, when I notice, I do. Otherwise, I let it go. I do try to be accurate with names, but I've noticed that not everyone does. I think the name spelling errors make it a little less likely that WM was telling the truth, but I don't put a whole lot of stock in it. Not everyone has the same standards.

LTA

6/8/2011 01:54:43

Viola, Deb, Who Knows, B, ect

I am fully convinced WM is a troll now. How utterly insane would it be to point out yourself as the ONLY other person who is 'in on it'? Sarah, Todd, CBJ, etc would instantly know whom it was doing the blabbing.

I have voiced my skepticism about WM from the beginning and normally I probably wouldn't even bother to post AGAIN just to point out what you all have already said- the singling out of herself, the misspellings of even FIRST names...but I think WM may have unwittingly given us a usable tidbit. I still think she's lying...it's just one of those "even a stone dead clock still has the right time twice a day" things.

Ok so the name included on her "people who know" list that stands out to me is...GUSTY.

Sometimes I think we tend to lose sight of important details, only because as the years go by, it's hard to keep EVERYTHING at the forefront of our minds. But this is why I think Gusty is relevant-

I know the Gusty pics have been "conclusively dated" because they were taken at the same time Gusty's footage was shot in 4/08, just days prior to Trig's birth. I know the footage LOOKS the same in yerms of clothing, etc.

But something IS off about these photos, I KNOW it. To start, if they were taken on the same day as the footage, why did THEY not surface until AFTER Palin was tapped for VP and the rumors about Trig started to fly. Suddenly these photos appear, on a Flicker account with nothing else, just these two photos. The photos were purposely compromised down from a high resolution to lower, less crisp quality. The ONLY reason one would do this is to keep the photos from being enlarged to any significant degree.

And who is the mysterious "Erik" that owned this account and uploaded these photos? We know the numbers after "Erik" in the username are the zip code of Gusty's hometown. What are the odds?

Gusty claimed not to know how anyone would have gotten the photos. So we're to believe someone basically stole images from a news entity, posted them online, and left them there for two years, never adding another thing to the account? That in itself proves the Flicker account was created ONLY to show these photos.

The only photos which show Sarah Palin "pregnant". The photos which show wavy, highlighted hair...seemingly only sported by Sarah AFTER she got the VP nod. Check Every other still photo of her up to Trig's "birth" and you'll see updo, updo, updo.

So Gusty, one of four people in the hallway that day, allegedly does not know who "Erik" is or how he came to get the memory chip or camera with these photos...if you had a camera with the ONLY photos of a very pregnant looking Palin, and someone stole your camera/chip and posted the photos from it online, and that "thief" just HAPPENED to have Gusty's hometown zip code as part of the user name on the photo account...

And let's not forget what to me is the most glaring issue concerning these 2 photos...in two photos which were proven to have been taken only moments apart (via the internal data connected to each photo I believe)... Sarah is wearing a gold necklace in one photo... yet there is no necklace in the other photo.

I am not sure what if anything I'm even trying to convey...just that something does not add up about these pictures...and also my n

ginny

6/8/2011 01:56:42

Do we have any reason at all to believe anything that Wholly Mary has said? Do we have any reason or evidence that Gusty had motive to be in on staged pictures? (I.e., is she friend or family to the Palins or have any other connection with them?).

LTA

6/8/2011 01:57:36

Sorry, accidentally hit submit too soon!

What I was saying ... Besides the photos just not adding up...I just have a strong gut feeling, GUSTY KNOWS. Or she at least knows more than we were initially led to believe.

SPEAK UP, Gusty!

Leona

6/8/2011 02:06:31

I tend to agree with Viola's theory about the babies.
If Frank Bailey can be believed at all, and I'm not so sure of the degree to which he can be believed, then one thing to be sure of is that Sarah Palin gets 100% obsessed, and I mean OBSESSED, by people trying to get at the truth beneath all her lies. So, if you are reading this blog, Sarah Palin, know that your fraudulent behaviors will be exposed eventually. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

ginny

6/8/2011 02:06:46

LTA, I didn't know about the necklace! I went back and watched the video on youtube from when Gusty was addressing the speculation of a faked photo, and sure enough, during her interview with Gusty, SP is not wearing the necklace seen in the posed photo of SP and the 2 men supposedly taken on the same occasion. Of course, it could be that the necklace fell off or broke or SP just may have taken it off for some reason. But is that likely? Probably not.

ginny

6/8/2011 02:12:39

OK, I'll shut up after this, but watching that video again...it's so low quality (at least, the youtube version I watched was), that I'm not 100% sure there is or isn't a necklace on SP there. Who knows.

SLQ

6/8/2011 02:19:26

I just watched the Gusty statement again where she defends the photos/video. It's interesting what she says: "I'm setting the record straight once and for all. The picture was not altered. I report the facts. The fact is, these pictures are real."

Earlier, she talks about the Palin/Bristol pregnancy coverup and claims one allegation is that she is part of the coverup, but doesn't actually address these issues in her "once and for all" statement. Of course, she doesn't mention the possibility that the belly was real, or that the the photos were taken at a different time (though she DOES say they were taken on April 13, at the beginning of the piece). At the time she released her statement, I don't believe the fake belly theory had been raised. The allegations about the photo at the time was that it was a composite, i.e. Palin and her pregnant belly were photoshopped in.

It is definitely a scripted statement, but that's not terribly surprising, for a news story. They do show a news clip with the supposed live coverage on the day the budget session closed, which does indicate it was filmed on April 13. There is a blip in the footage, shortly before the lead-in, at 3:09 which is interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzyZkl4GyrM

LTA

6/8/2011 02:20:41

Ginny, I think if Gusty is in on it, it was something like this-

Sarah phones up her old friend the reporter right after the VP nod. Gusty is likely excited to hear from her because she's an even bigger interview prospect now that she's a VP candidate. Sarah starts whining and waaaah-ing about these evil, horrible MEAN people saying nasty things about Trig not being her biological son.

There may have been a conversational turning point where Sarah said something like:
"Oh this is just SO upsetting...I just wanted to see if you have any footage of me pregnant in your archives, you would seriously be a HERO to the campaign..."

She may have stuck in some stuff about how people are victimizing her poor little baby...I'm sure she peppered in lots of suggestive wording- "I mean, YOU know I was pregnant, YOU know how insane this is..."

And she may have brought it home by giving Gusty a chance to be the hero- "can you think of ANYTHING we can do here? I can't believe we may well lose the election based on vicious rumors which only started because I was too busy RUNNING THIS GREAT STATE to pose for maternity magazine..."

Naturally these are just examples of a conversation which COULD have transpired. But I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if Sarah manipulated it just like this. The payoff would have been Gusty tentatively saying "well, we could possibly do a couple pictures, just to shut up the rumormongers..." at which point Sarah would have totally steamrolled her with effusive praise and thanks- "oh THANK YOU, that is SUCH a great idea, thank you SO much, you are SAVING US here!"

The rest, as they say, is constantly revised history.

AquaRose

6/8/2011 02:21:14

Interesting list of misspelled words. There's an extraneous "e" in every one.

curiouser

6/8/2011 02:30:42

ginny - The video of the KTVA April 13 news report on the end of the legislative session is hard evidence for the Gusty photo. The interview is also noted on Palin's official calendar. Silver's comment has a link to the video.

I'm going out of town and probably won't be able to comment for awhile. Hope everyone has a great week.

ginny

6/8/2011 02:52:29

LTA, that makes sense. You are saying, Gusty wasn't in on the hoax, but was in on a staged photo, believing that SP really was pregnant. That seems like a possibility.
curiouser, I'm not sure what you mean? Are you saying that you believe the KTVA footage proves that Gusty is telling the truth and that the photo was authentic and from the same day/occasion as the video footage? Or are you saying the video footage was also staged? Wouldn't that bring many others at the news station in on the "staged photo/video"? These people would not be bound by any HIPAA laws.

Ottoline

6/8/2011 02:58:09

Re "the interview is noted on Palin's official calendar" -- what time of day is it noted for?

Gusty makes a point of saying her photo shoot and the tv interview took place at night. The office photo is obviously in daytime, so it must have come first, and obviously without the fake pregnancy belly. Suggesting maybe the latter photo was done by a different person than Gusty, perhaps to maintain deniability for Gusty.

Suggesting also (if it is true that the two photos were taken on the same day) that someone or a very few someones) saw Palin on that day, in that outfit, both with and without the fake belly strapped on. Surely even a man would notice the difference?

I would love to know what date if any is stated for the office photo? I wonder if Bailey could identify the photographer or circumstances of that photo. After all, he put it into the book, even if it was his publisher who chose that specific one.

I sure would hope Brad sees this similarity of these two photos and comments on it.

6/8/2011 03:04:20

I will repeat a comment that I made over at PG. I watched the Gusty video where she attempts to 'set the record straight'. In the Palin interview of 4/13 (in the hallway), Palin's hair is very dark. In the Palin interview 3 days after the supposed birth (4/21 I assume), Palin's hair is light. Some of the difference could be due to different hairstyles (down versus up) and different lighting, but the difference seems too great to me. Was the KTVA interview actually aired in April2008? Even if there was an interview with Gusty that day (on her calendar), was it that interview? Palin looks so different in the two segments, I am inclined to think that the hair down interview was later, after the VP nod.

ginny

6/8/2011 03:04:40

Ottoline, I believe that Bailey says in the book that he himself took that photo, and that it was in "may 2008". If it's the same baby as the baby-shower pics, then it would have to be very late May for the baby to have plumped up so much. The ear does look like the same one, to me.

alexis

6/8/2011 03:04:52

April 13, 2008 is a SUNDAY!!

Why the hell would they have a legistlative session and tv interview on a sunday??

seem odd to me...

ginny

6/8/2011 03:07:45

Jo, there is a more complete footage of the original news segment from the Gusty interview, and it includes footage of the anchorman in the studio doing the lead-in to the interview. I think it's a stretch to think that even an anchorman would have to be in on a staged interview/photo or even one that is presented as aired on the wrong date.

LTA

6/8/2011 03:09:04

Curiouser- I hate to sound THIS "out there"...but I would say the video of the legislative session end is evidence of just that- a video. Why would the photos not be seen ANYWHERE until after the veep nod? Those photos were released right when the whole Internet was going haywire with the rumors. Right? I'm almost positive nobody sawmthem until that time.

IF they were taken when the video was shot, why not display them om the web site WITH the video? That is SOP for most news stations I notice...there's a video thumbnail and then one or twomstill photos for people who maybe can't load a video or whatever.

But more important...say for the sake of argument I agree and say the photos are from the end of the session, taken a few days before Trig's announced birth. And nobody saw hide nor hair of them until after the VP nod...

WHY the heck wouldn't Gusty just SAY "well I'm going to share these photos I have because I think these Trig rumors are silly". Why all the boo-ha-ha about "I don't know HOW those photos got there! I have NO IDEA who this strange Erik is!"?

It just seems if things are the way Gusty says they are...there would be no need for all these verbal acrobatics and half denials. If the pics are from session's end as the video is...why not just say "in addition to the video we took of Gov. Palin, we also have this small gallery of still photos". I just don't see how all the photo down sizing, missing necklace, etc fits in.

I realize how truly asinine it sounds to imply they all put on the exact same clothes and shoes and staged the photos. I feel silly even typing it! But taking into account the disappearing necklace, mysterious Erik, and photos not being seen at ALL anywhere until the rumors hit after the VP nod...I have to at least consider that something is off!

curiouser

6/8/2011 03:20:47

ginny - Ha! My comment was confusing. I probably should've stayed out of this discussion as it looks like I may have missed part of it. I believe the video shows that the Gusty photo was taken the same day as the interview, April 13. I don't think the photo was either staged at a later date or photoshopped. The photos of Palin taken in Texas on April 17 are consistent with the Gusty belly.

viola

6/8/2011 03:26:18

if WM is a troll, she sure brought up a name we haven't thought about in a while, Ms Gusty. As to putting herself on a list of those in the know, just because she's on the list doesn't mean the others KNOW she's on the list. She may be so unimportant, that no one suspects her. A church secretary, a nurse's aide, a neighbor, a dotty friend of Sally's.

So if she's a troll, why bring up Gusty (and by inference, the infamous Gusty photo), when we'd all conveniently forgotten it.

I agree with LTA, and actually stated that same idea years ago. That Gusty played along as a favor to recreate a photo to match the video, which was filmed before Trig's birth. As others who've read Frank Bailey's book have stated, everyone helped out Sarah. . . no matter how wacky the requests.

and then the Gusty photo surfaces online in August 08, and she has no idea how it got there. And since she believes in the pregnancy, she has nothing to lie about. Other than she took part in a stunt, and to say so, would only make herself look bad. Then when the rumors come up, she realizes she's been used. Hence, she'd know.

The two babies theory is cranking, baby! Thanks Laura and Brad for re-opening this particular Sarah-Pandora box!

CougInPortland

6/8/2011 03:29:18

A friend of mine's daughter just gave birth to a daughter on Saturday night 5 weeks early. Pre-eclampsia and a spike in blood pressure necessitated it.

This little angel is STILL in NICU. 6 pounds, 8 ounces, but, and I quote, "as with preemie's, she's breathing quite rapidly and until her little lungs develop better, they won't let her go home. She has a breathing tube, with just oxygen, to help her."

This is STATUS QUO from what I understand, and just reaffirms to me that this whole convoluted "story" of Trig is just THAT. A con. Down Syndrome, a hole in his heart, and back to work with him three days later?

Wake UP, MSM! Expose her for what she is! FRAUD.

curiouser

6/8/2011 03:33:25

LTA - Gusty says they were personal photos. Why would she post them on the internet in April? When the pregnancy hoax question went nationwide, someone (possibly Bill McAllister, Sarah's spokesman) put them up to show that she had looked pregnant. All I can deal with now is that the photos show her looking as pregnant as she appeared around April 13-17. I don't know what additional info a 'staging' would provide us other than there were people trying to help Palin out with the nationwide rumor. I really do have to go and will come back to this when I can get back to my computer to see if I'm missing something.

Sally

6/8/2011 03:37:39

I think Wholy Mary is stringing us along too also. We haven't heard anything from him/her yet that would make him/her believable.

As for the Gusty video that contains the still pictures of Palin being pregnant, it's pretty hard to deny that evidence. The still pictures were challenged by some socalled experts at the time and it turned out that the experts didn't know what they were talking about. So Palin and Gusty produced the video from which the pictures were taken. Proving once and for all that the pictures weren't photoshopped. The final undeniable proof being, the identical same pictures were contained in the video. Experts have taken the pictures and matched them with the video frames from which they were taken and they have found that they were an exact match. Or, at least that's what we think has happened. It did happen that way didn't it??? Or could it possibly be that there are no exact matches contained in the video for the pictures produced beforehand??

If WM knew the answer to that wouldn't he/she bring it up for question?

Great blog you have here Laura! LOts of really good speculating on Palin's deception. Sadly, lots of bad too.

ProChoiceGrandma

6/8/2011 04:03:51

I am struggling to try to put into words a theory that is rather frightening:

http://tinyurl.com/3ojnnzw

1. What if "Trig" in the first photo (the one held by the Heaths) was actually the temporary stand-in baby, because "Ruffles" was too sickly to be presented? They took care to make sure "Trig's" ears were covered at all times.

2. "Ruffles" was photographed by Mercede and by Kristan Cole, but those pictures were never meant to be public. Those were taken May 3 & 4, 2008.

3. The date of the picture of "Ruffles" taken by Frank Bailey is unknown. But he looks terrible, his face looks very swollen, and I don't mean chubby like "Trig". I left a comment asking Gryphen if he knows the date or can ask Frank Bailey.

4. What if "Ruffles" died, either by natural causes like SIDS or through negligence? Even if it were natural causes, that would still look bad for Sarah, like she wasn't able to juggle being a mom and a governor and the baby lost in the juggling. If she sought sympathy for the death of "her" baby, enough people knew Bristol had been pregnant and suspicions would be aroused.

5. If the original "Trig" in Picture 1 was borrowed, he may have been provided by a fundie adoption service through Wasilla Bible Church - the one that was burned by an arsonist in December 2009.

6. If they borrowed "Trig" before, why not obtain him again to replace "Ruffles", but permanently?

IMO, the "Trig" at the RNC with his perfect ears could not be the same as "Ruffles".

Thoughts?

Sally

6/8/2011 04:12:25

PCG, It's just my opinion but I don't think there's anything in the ear theory and I don't think any of the babies is going to die all of a sudden. But those are just my own personal opinions and I wouldn't want them to influence what others think on this blog.

Sally

6/8/2011 04:19:16

OH, and I should have said too also. I think that it's been settled now between the GOP and Sarah that she is not going to run for president. The GOP must have been quite concerned because they were maybe a little bit worried about damage being done to the legit candidates that need to come out and declare in the next little while. So I think they are quite happy with Sarah's charade as long as they are in control of the message she's getting out to the people. It can be used to their advantage by taking the spotlight off Obams for now. At least right up until Michele Bawwkman declares her candidacy which should happen next week. That's what I think.

Gotta do some travelling down south now so won't be able to read and comment here for a few days.

Yellowgirl

6/8/2011 04:26:36

Sally: I think you are wrong. I'm not sure that the video was ever correlated to the pics as video stills... in fact, if memory serves, the 3 Amigos photo is from a completely different hallway/angle. ALSO, and everyone seems to forget this, right about the time Gusty tried to "set the record straight" there was a photographer blogger named Morgan who started a blog called PalinPics4Truth . She was threatened in real life and shut the entire sight down, catche and all. It was right about the time she figured out the pictures were off somehow (though I've forgotten the details).

Floyd M. Orr link

6/8/2011 04:29:06

PCG, the theory you have presented is very close to the one I have thought for some time now is the most likely truth, or a very close variant of it. There is one question that really bugs me, though. Why did the OK Magazine cover shot from the 3/4/08 baby shower appear months later? Did SP authorize it? Would Kristan Cole, or whomever positively took the particular shot utilized, allow OK to publish it if it was such a giveaway to the baby hoax?

Elizabeth

6/8/2011 04:35:48

Regarding the Gutsy photos and her strange newscast defending the interview and the photos.

Does anyone remember the details of what happened to prompt that? I do.

Someone on Audrey's blog was starting to really analyze those photos. (I'm sorry but I don't remember her name Meagan??? but she started her own blog.) She was coming up with some very interesting findings on those photos. I was following carefully because it was interesting. All of sudden Gusty was on TV defending the interview and the photos. I remember even posting at the time on this person's blog, "Hey you must be on to something. They responded."

And then just a few days later that blogger was threatened and her blog disappeared. I think someone posted a picture of her car and it freaked her out.

I wish I could remember her name and I know someone will.

But here is the interesting thing. Someone was making Palin and Co. really nervous - nervous to the point that they convinced Gusty to go on TV and defend her interview with Palin. Nervous to the point that they went to extreme lengths to shut down this blogger who was analyzing pictures.

Those pictures stink to high-hell. Does anyone not wonder why a sitting Governor only has two verifiable pictures of her pregnancy available and those didn't show up until 6 months after the baby was 'born'.

I think the video and pictures probably are legit but show Palin with her empathy belly. I think even Palin is smart enough to know that having pictures of you with an empathy belly floating around when there are other pictures that don't have it, is risky.

But in August 2008 they took the risk because the clamor was loud and clear on the Internet.

And now the clamor is loud and clear once again and in many more places and not there is a whole lot more evidence and so much more is known about Sarah Palin that it no longer shocks anyone that this is a woman who do anything, lie about anything or fake anything to further her personal agenda of selfish & unbridled ambition.

Keep the pressure on, keep talking and throw those theories out here no matter how outlandish they are.

Sarah Palin - either you are a big fat lying fraud or you can tell the truth. It's on no one but you but this is not going away!!!

Lilybart

6/8/2011 04:48:13

Regarding the gusty photos: They were posted anonymously in Aug of 08 and then pulled down again soon after.

I believe that whomever thought they were "helping" her by posting them, (and who found them in the first place? how did they know to look?) did not help her. In fact, the Gusty photos blow her story of not really looking that pregnant, didn't show, tight abs, yada yada and I bet they would prefer the Gusty photos were never seen!

molly malone

6/8/2011 04:54:06

Laura- One aspect of the Miraculous Misconception that may deserve a post of its own is what would have happened to Palin, from a medical standpoint, had her body actually morphed from flat to Gusty over such a short period of time.

I do remember reading somewhere that such a rapid increase would not only have been excruciatingly painful, but would probably have required hospitalization as well. Guess what I'm asking here is, if this were to actually happen to a person, under what circumstances would it be possible? What would have to be happening internally? What would be the predictable consequences, and why?

ProChoiceGrandma

6/8/2011 05:00:06

@Floyd M. Orr

(You had a typo, you meant 5-4-08 baby shower, in case in confuses people, as if this whole thing isn't confusing enough!!)

This is the photo you are referring to?

http://www.okmagazine.com/2008/09/cover-story-sarah-palins-baby-scandal-8801/

Note, of course, that the baby's ears are fully covered by the blanket. But good question.

Ottoline

6/8/2011 05:00:26

PCG: see Silver and ginny above, who say the office picture is dated May 08 in the book, with Bailey as the photographer. I don't take that to be rock-solid date info, though. So Gyphen's opinion would be most welcome.

I'm puzzled by the Gusty "record straight" video. When it appeared, I took it to be an authentic copy of a tv broadcast. Could it be various authentic pieces spliced together, with the SP/Gusty interview videoed at the same time as the photo shoot, but never aired, until Gusty made the "set record straight" video, which falsely claimed that the footage was actually aired at the time. If it was aired as stated (apr 13), that dates it, rock solid; if it was not: big question re Gusty lying to say it was, forging the video that says it was.

It fooled me: I accepted that it really was aired around Apr 13. Could Gusty just do that, including the anchorman and the CBS logo?

What Gusty says in the rebuttal is prob true: the photos and interview video are real, taken at the same time. Real photos of a woman wearing a fake belly. But when? Apr or much later?

I still don't see how Palin could be wearing that same hair and jacket both 7 mo "pregnant" and supposedly post-birth (Bailey office photo), esp not if it's on the same day. And if it IS the same clothes/hair, the office photo would have been taken first (daylight) and the other photos+interview second (dark door). So Palin would have had to put on and take off the fake belly on the same day and be seen both ways. We know from the Trig presentation photos in the office that she had no post-partum pooch that would have required wearing maternity clothes post-partum.

Yellowgirl: I followed the Morgan photoshop analysis at the time and my view was that it was hype without substance; nothing was found to suggest fake photos. Still, it scared Gusty into doing the "record straight" video.

Floyd M. Orr link

6/8/2011 05:07:51

PCG, good catch on my typo. Even though I read through my comment before posting, it still got by me! Yes, I agree that the ears seem to be carefully covered in that whole 5/4/08 series, but I was also referring to the baby's apparent size and age. Maybe by the time they gave the photo to the magazine, they were confident that no one would bother to analyze the chronology?

molly malone

6/8/2011 05:29:58

I hate to keep bringing up ratio and proportion but I think this may be useful in determining the size of Trig-1 and Trig-2.

The length of Sadie's hand--fingertip to wrist--is one half the length of the baby she is holding. Although Sally's fingers are curled, we do have a clear view of the back of her hand, and on average most peoples' fingers are as long as their hand (wrist to 1st knuckle. Even without calculating in foreshortening due to the angle at which Sally is holding the Mat Su baby, it is much more than two hand-lengths long. (That is, assuming that the Mat Su baby has premie curled legs, that Sally isn't extremely small, and Sadie isn't ginormous.) I hope this helps more than it confuses.

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 05:30:35

Magazines sometimes recycle their covers to save money.

Here's one US Magazine could reuse:
http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/share/86/867/760/867607_370.jpg

DebinOH

6/8/2011 05:47:16

Okay, speaking of pictures again. I think the pictures of Sarah a few days after birth show her to be thin & trim. Go to Huffington Post (the entertainment section) and take a look at what a real postpartum woman looks like. Pink who is 5 days postpartum still looks pregnant.

This is how most normal women look after giving birth. I still think the picture of her postpartum is the most startling picture to me.

LizH

6/8/2011 05:56:16

Elizabeth - the blogger's who reviewed the photos in depth was Morgan. (I'm pretty sure.)

Sally

6/8/2011 05:57:20

Alright, let's do this one more time with the pictures before I sign off for a few days. Here's what happened. Palin posted the pictures. Morgan claimed they were photoshopped in that there were several problems with the floor, the pictures behind, etc., and that came from Morgan's socalled expert. Which was really stupid because the only problem with the pictures being fake was the fake padding Palin was wearing. So Palin didn't panic, she saw a golden opportunity to prove the bloggers wrong and so Palin and Gusty produced the video that the pictures came from. Or supposedly came from. And that killed the theories that the pictures were photoshopped and did a tremendous amount of damage to the cred of the bloggers. Which did a tremendous lot of good to Palin's cred.

In addition to that, I would respectfully suggest that people who don't know shouldn't post as if they do know. It takes a good lead and mangles it and that only adds to the confusion.

Like as if it even matters though because most people are still stuck wondering if Palin faked it and Bristol had it. Dohhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

viola

6/8/2011 06:11:19

Why would you infer that Morgan's work was "stupid." It was anything but. Morgan was a sidekick of Audrey's and worked tirelessly to expose Palin's fraud. Everything stinks about the "3 Amigos" photo. When it was discovered, when it was originally taken, the people in it, the fake belly. All of us are positing theories in an attempt to solve this mystery and stop Sarah Palin. To call any of that stupid does nothing to further our cause. All we know for sure is that Sarah Palin is a liar and she did not give birth in 2008. And after this post and Gryph's work, I believe I know for sure there were at least two babies.

elizabeth

6/8/2011 06:14:14

Sally,

I don't think the pics were fakes. But put things into context and remember at the time those pics surfaced, the idea that a sitting governor would strap on a fake belly was mind-boggling to say the least. There was a lot of analysis being done on the photos because they were just so much weirdness associated with them, to say the least. Remember these were the pics that were being used to discredit the 'fake pregnancy' theories and the pics that effectively shut down the DKos thread that was going viral at the time.

I don't think anyone should admonish anyone what they should or shouldn't post. A lot of people have been around since Day 1 and a lot of newcomers are coming in.

I still think the pics are beyond weird in that they are basically the ONLY pics in existence that show a visibly pregnant Sarah Palin and to this day the origins of those pics are beyond sketchy.

And whatever Morgan did or didn't prove she obviously got the attention of Palin and Company to the point that the hijacked a evening newcast to discredit speculation and someone went to extreme means to shut Morgan's blog down.

What is most interesting to me in this whole stinking mess is Palin's actions. She has never ONCE acted like a truly concerned mother would act. She has always resorted to nefarious and questionable methods to stop speculation, including sacrificing her own teenage daughter to the wolves.

And we know these endless speculations drive her insane. And we also know that somewhere in these endless speculations is the truth. And she knows it.

And it's always interesting to me to see what gets a reaction from her and the bots.

And say what you want, that analysis by Morgan got an amazing reaction.

Palin does not want anyone talking about those pictures too much.

So hey, let's talk about them!!!!

Yellowgirl

6/8/2011 06:23:50

Morgan of Audrey's blog (moderator Morgan) was different than the Morgan of Palinpics4truth, iirc.

But, photographer Morgan's work really did strike a nerve. If memory serves, she had just done a post on how Bristol in the grey bolster dress could have been wearing an empathy belly OVER a smaller regular pregnancy belly to make her look farther along. Anyone here with good photoshop skills to show Bristol in grey bolster side by side with the empathy belly thingy?

lilly lily

6/8/2011 06:32:20

Morgan supposedly got a dead rabbit in her mailbox, though that was said to be false later.

Audrey whose blog it was was also co-erced by threats in outing her husband in some way.

At least that is how I recall how it went down, and I was not into Palins Deceptions except sporadically. I preferred to post at Brees around that time, as well as Mudflats. Though I became disenchanted by Mudflats and Griffen because of some in fighting. Normal enough in blog land U.S.A.

There was one commentator (dangerous?) who pushed Willow as the pregnant daughter, even wrote a novel which I didn't read. I may be wrong as I skimmed by most of the comments.

lilly lily

6/8/2011 06:37:38

Patrick was also there, and went to Palingates, then later Politicalgates with Kathleen.

I don't think Morgan and Patrick got along. Ditto Patrick and the Alaskans who acted as if it was their turf eclusively.

Patrick could tell you what went on at Palins Deceptions, but he is busy with his own life and blog.

I no longer go to Palingates or Politicalgates because they use Disqus, which is such a pain and waste of time with its vaugeries and glitches.

voiceinwind

6/8/2011 06:39:34

Morgan was working on some photos of Brestol (yes, I always do that, on purpose). That's why I sent her a few photos of Brestol that I found on MeaganMcCain's campaign blog. The very next day Morgan took her blog down. That happened sometime after Audrey stopped blogging. One photo I sent was Brestol in that grey dress backstage at a rally and she was not stuffed.

And I sent Morgan that photo of Brestol taken by Alaska Report on 07-19-08 which showed a slender Brestol with a small bust line wearing a leather jacket zipped up. There's another photo a few days later where she's standing with screechy in a group of fair goers. Five or six weeks later Brestol walked out on the national stage in that stuffed grey dress. Morgan had examined the photo of Brestol the first time she walked out on that stage with that blanket draped across her, the baby was not laying on a stuffed bust line. About the same bust line as the one in the zipped up jacket. That's why I sent Morgan additional photos.

I was looking at KCole's blog and those two pictures of screechy look staged. Screechy is wearing the same outfit, but the one with toadie ridiculously holding that gigantic sheet cake across his lap as if to date, that baby looks smaller. Smaller than the one where screechy has her head cut off. And I think screechy's left arm in the one with toadie looks awkward. Reminds me of that photo at the zoo in PA, I think, where Peper's arm looked gigantic and screechy looked heavy.

WM left KCole off her list.

6/8/2011 06:41:27

At least to me - and I am not an expert in this - the ear of the baby we've been calling Trig looks like Sarah's ear - the ridges in the middle - and like Bristol's - overall shape. So I think that this is a bit of evidence that Trig *is* a member of the Palin family, and not some random DS child found and used for publicity purposes. No, Sarah's using a member of her family for publicity purposes (easier to exploit those close at hand).

Floyd M. Orr link

6/8/2011 06:54:05

Off-topic, but a bit relevant:

Lilly Lily, Disqus is one of the best discoveries Patrick has made! I resisted applying it to my own blogs for a while simply because I thought it encouraged a lot of mindless chit-chat among the commenters, but I was WRONG! Disqus is wonderful for several reasons, the most important of which is that commenters can see their comments instantly and they can reply directly to other commenters without delay or confusion. Kathleen has recommended numerous times that you try Google Chrome. I am quite happy using Firefox, but that may be because I have a cable connection. I recommend EVERYONE dump IE because it is so deliberately proprietary, and I am not a fan of corporate control. Try Firefox or Google Chrome and give Disqus another shot. I have already installed it on multiple blogs and I have no problem with it as a blog master or commenter.

LTA

6/8/2011 06:58:42

Speaking of the DK thread which started the whole fake pregnancy issue...was it ever figured out or even possibly figured out who started the thread at Daily Kos? I remember the poster used some kind of Latin name right?

I seem to recall that DK shut the whole thing down like a Popsicle stand in a hurricane. It was like...huge deal, everyone talking about it...and then the whole deal was GONE and DK was all "pregnancy? Whaaaa? Sorry, wrong house!"

I used to think maybe it had been Bristol. But then I realized, no offense to the girl, she wrote in a very inarticulate and juvenile way. But the DKos poster had to be someone close to the vest. Oh I just had a thought...

Does the Latin username the DKos poster used...have anything to do with medicine or physicians? Yes you know where I'm going with this...was the DK poster possibly Dr CBJ??

Trying to 'save' the nation from what she had just helped unleash on it? Wild I know, but what in this whole mess isn't.

LTA

6/8/2011 07:13:55

Floyd, I have the worst time with Disqus. The only time it ever works for me is if I take my iPad into a wifi zone. I use 3G almost always. Do you have any disqus hints or tips for iPad users? I have gotten to where I don't even go to certain blogs anymore because I hate not being able to read or reply to comments.

Lillylilly, yellowgirl, etc
Morgan didn't get a dead rabbit, I believe that was just an off the cuff comment someone made regarding how far Palinbots would go to intimidate and bully.

Both Audrey and Morgan were threatened with the airing of family dirt/secrets/whatever and Audrey's husbands job was said to have been at risk. He was supposed to be some kind of doctor I believe. Morgan had a photo of her home sent to her also...at the time I believe it scared her a lot but I know she came to learn it was just a google earth type photo and not like someone stalking her physically.

Audrey put SO much time and effort into this and I think she even spent her own money to have photo analysis done by a pro. Sometimes I think the best part of breaking babygate would be if she popped up after it was all said and done, and told the bot bullies where they could stick their threats.

alexis

6/8/2011 07:17:43

@ LTA

Do you remember the latin name?

Floyd M. Orr link

6/8/2011 07:25:15

LTA and Lilly Lily, I'm sorry, but I cannot help you with the application problems of Disqus with portable devices. I use a home computer built and sold by I Buy Power and I HIGHLY recommend them. They know how to build a butt-kicking PC, and the one I have is one of their cheapest models. Maybe someone else here can help you with your Disqus issue on a portable device.

viola

6/8/2011 07:29:30

ArcXIX ?

Molly

6/8/2011 07:32:54

Both Audrey and Morgan were looking at pics of Bristol's supposed pregnancy when they were shut down.

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 07:33:13

@ viola YEP!!!

Daily Kos Fascists EXPUNGE and BAN the blogger ArcXIX for Sarah Palin's Babygate

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/7969

ProChoiceGrandma

6/8/2011 07:35:11

@Ottoline, thanks for that info, they said May 2008, just to make sure that is not confused with May 8th.

I googled "capital project request 2009" and got this report, dated May 23, 2008.

http://omb.alaska.gov/ombfiles/09_budget/Trans/Enacted/2009proj45675.pdf

I seems to me that Frank Bailey's picture was taken in the latter part of May which so far would fit with what I am thinking.

akgrrl

6/8/2011 07:37:50

Here is the DK article:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080901065624/http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223

lilly lily

6/8/2011 07:44:35

Thank you Floyd, but in a way the problems with Disqus were so time consuming and irritating that it is just as well.

I do read the lead in articles at Palingates and Politicalgates, and that is sufficient for me.

I do try to keep my Palin fixes down to a few hours here and there. It can consume all your time once you start commenting everywhere.

I do have numerous other interests besides trying to get the Palin witch to shrivel up like the Wicked Witch of the West. She needs to be sprinkled with some sort of holy water. LOL, a long lapsed Catholic here.

She is a monster.

Joe Mcginniss has an excellent blog now. Called Joe McGinniss Rogue blog.

elizabeth

6/8/2011 07:47:25

My memory is that someone sent Morgan a picture of her car that was parked near or in front of her house.

It freaked her out because she thought they knew where she was and where she lived.

I don't remember who started the Dkos thread. I do remember it well though because it just blew my mind. I never in a million years thought anything that outrageous could be attached to a VP candidate. I like just about everyone else thought it was 100% BS and I even thought the Gutsy picture was pretty valid proof. It was a verboten (and still is) topic at MudFlats. But then I found Audrey's blog and then I really read Palin's wild ride story and then I saw a picture of her from 'Super Tuesday', a 43 mother of 4 who was supposedly 6-7 months pregnant and she looked thinner than a model. And then I watched her throw her 17 year old daughter to the wolves at the RNC and then I thought to myself. Who is this woman?

And now two years later I'm 100% convinced that she is reckless, dangerous, unrepentant fraud and I am 100% convinced she lied about being pregnant with Trig and she used that lie to hitch a ride on a Presidential campaign by passing herself off as a pro-life, family-values candidate and in the process exploited her entire family including an innocent baby to do so.

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 07:48:04

Does WHOly Mary want us to figure out who he or she is?

6/8/2011 07:53:25

Ottoline,
I had the same question about the Gusty 'set the record straight' video. Did 'the hallway interview' actually air in April 2008 or was it just shown when Gusty did her 'set the record straight' video. If 'the hallway interview' was never actually shown, it could have been done later.

grammy97

6/8/2011 08:03:50

Responding to Elizabeth, about the blogger who was threatened. I think you're remembering Morgan Kaiser. She was on Audrey's blog for a while. She was a photographer, and had sharp, rational things to say about that Gusty photo. Shortly after she posted a photo of an empathy belly in use, she was threatened, and shut down her blog.

6/8/2011 08:05:00

Just to reiterate The Tale of Two Morgans.

Morgan#1 worked in photography, commented at Audrey's, and then created PalinPics4Truth. She disappeared quickly after being threatened in some way and took her blog and photoanalysis down.

Morgan#2 blogged about McCain's Vagina and then joined Audrey as a co-worker, moderating the comments for Audrey. Her personal blog lasted longer than Audrey's but eventually she stopped posting. Every now and then she comments at Gryphen's, never at Politicalgates.

K.M.R

6/8/2011 08:18:41

Navigate:

* POLITICO
*
* No more Sarah Palin pics at Palinpics4truth due threats?

Main Content
No more Sarah Palin pics at Palinpics4truth due threats? - : No more Sarah Palin pics at Palinpics4truth due threats?
February 02, 2009
Categories:

* Antics

No more Sarah Palin pics at Palinpics4truth due threats?

Wow.

Those who liked – or didn’t – the blog, “Palinpics4truth” are in for a big disappointment.

It has been taken down, as the message on the site explains:

"I have received one too many threatening comments about this blog. As much as I am committed to this case being resolved once and for all, it is not fair to my family for me to possibly put them at risk. I think, and am hopeful that threats are idle and there is no real intention behind them...but I of course cannot put my family's safety in doubt by thinking, betting on, or hoping that there is not someone out there who was made a little too angry by this blog.

The web site will also be taken down and the e-mail account closed. It truly breaks my heart to do it- I could not explain how much. I sincerely hope the best for all of the wonderful people I corresponded with and hope that eventually there will be a climate change and I will be able to speak freely without fear worry of my family's safety."

LTA

6/8/2011 08:22:26

Jo-
I am not 100% on this but I vaguely recall Gusty showing at least a piece of the hallway video and as if she was explaining to a toddler was all "Seeeee, THIS video was shot on the saaaame daaaay". She either said or implied the clip she was showing was not shown previously.

I had horrible Internet service at the time and couldn't even watch the whole thing but I strongly recall feeling very patronized by Gusty and much like Julie OMalley from the Anchorage paper, I think Gusty honestly felt like, if she SAID it then we all would drop this nasty little business of questioning her participation and motives.

VIOLA, thank you, yes! ArcXIX. Is that Latin? I'm embarrassed to say I have no idea. BUT I have always been surprised that nobody ever popped up to say "aha! ArcXIX means abc xyz!"

I don't want anyone to go throwing good thought after bad, but surely this username might have some significance? And the fact DKos not only purged any and all mention of it but also issued an Edict For All The Land stating you couldn't even discuss it in passing. And DK is supposed to be independent and forward thinking, JUST the type of place which encourages (normally) free debate.

I have to admit, the complete and utter expungement of the initial article (even though they HAD to be 100% aware it would spread like wildfire even with their authoritarian stance) makes me wonder if DK didn't get a call from very very high in the Palin/Mccain/GOP machine. What if Trig's birth mother wrote that entry? OR...Track, in a fit of anger over his mother's selfishness in accepting the veep nod? I wonder if ArcXIX has anything to do with the army or military.

Bristol Palin was very conveniently JUST pregnant enough, a few days later. Although nobody has ever confirmed with proof where Tripp was born.

Conscious at last

6/8/2011 08:33:11

@ B

Yes, thanks for that clarification. This is sort of how I remember it too.

But I want to restate a key point here.
Both Audrey's blog(Palin's Deceptions) and Morgan#1's short lived blog(PalinPics4Truth) were shut down by threats right after they each, respectively, posted articles questioning various aspects of Bristol's pregnancy with Tripp.

In fact, I remember, very distinctly, that Morgan received a threat in a comment that someone would "see her in court" for this post.

I have always felt that the cluster of events surrounding Tripp's birth raised many red flags:

Sherry Johnston's set-up and arrest
Weird Birth Announcements
No photos of the happy mom and baby
Fire which kills Dar Miller
Fire at the Church
Strangely large baby in both the Feb GVS interview and the May GMA interview.....
and more.....

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 08:40:32

It looks like it wasn't totally expunged.

http://wizbangblog.com/docs/Daily-Kos-Sarah-Palin-Smear.htm

Brad Scharlott

6/8/2011 08:41:05

A couple of you asked my opinion of some of the baby pictures, such as ruffled ear Trig, etc. I have to confess I have not studied those pictures closely, and I doubt I'd see anything more than the eagle-eyed among you all have seen. My experience in digital imaging may help me in some ways, but when it comes "seeing" the manifest content of a picture, I have no advantage over anyone else.

viola

6/8/2011 08:49:20

Thanks akgrrrl, for the original Kos link and article. I had never read it. The language is powerful and personal. The argument is laid out as clear as day. I'm amazed that it was all there so early. I thought Audrey had created all that "proof" but she was just building on what ArcXIX wrote. Here's an excerpt from the beginning:

"Now, I've known liars in my life. Their single core problem is not with themselves, but those around them. If they're never called out on their twisting of truths and fabrications, they simply continue to make larger lies.

Well, Sarah, I'm calling you a liar. And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better."

The Gusty photo is what killed ArcXIX and erased this post. Pretty powerful photograph.

ProChoiceGrandma

6/8/2011 08:49:41

@akgrrl THANK YOU! I had never seen the original Dkos article and always wondered what was said in the article that seemed to upset so many. Frankly, ArcXIX seemed to be very spot on, except he/she got a couple of dates wrong.

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 08:55:10

The Arc promotes and protects the human rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. http://www.thearc.org/

XIX= 10 + 9 =19

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 09:21:42

Here's the follow-up post from August 31, 2008.

http://wizbangblog.com/docs/BabyGate%202%20-%20Daily%20Kos.htm

alexis

6/8/2011 09:28:08

Or

XIX=X+I+X

or 10+1+10= 21

Trisomy 21

mistah charley, ph.d.

6/8/2011 09:34:01

ARC began as the Association for Retarded Childfren, changed its name to Association for Retarded Citizens, then just to The Arc. I have a nephew with Fragile X syndrome, one of the common causes of intellectual disability.

6/8/2011 10:30:23

I'm not convinced the necklace proves anything about the Gusty photos. I have several necklaces like that and often take them off during the day because the clasp gets caught in my hair.

I do find it fishy that she was dressed and had hair done, given her usual ummm, casual look. But that may be because she knew the photo would be widely released as "proof" of her pregnancy.

Odd that she was so enormous in that photo but 4 sets of flight attendants failed to notice her pregnancy just a fewdays later.

Allie

6/8/2011 11:00:23

Fascinating commentary. First time poster. I have read hundreds of comments now regarding the two baby theory, and I have not seen anyone make this point. I throw this out for your consideration. Baby substitution is one thing when you are talking about normal babies. There is enough infant variation to be close enough. But, we are talking about Down syndrome babies. They aren't rare, but they aren't a 'dime a dozen'. What is interesting beyond all the other characteristics noted is that all the photos I have viewed purporting to be Trig look like actual DS babies. However, they are clearly not the same baby.

I think the photos show that the hallway baby probably isn't the office baby who surely isn't the May 3-4 baby who is definitely not the convention baby. That's a lot of DS substitutions. I did not look at the Bailey photo, so maybe that's another one. I'm still working on trying to rectify all those puzzle pieces.

6/8/2011 11:34:59

I thought Tillie's theory made sense, but PCG, yours does as well. And what you note about the (two) photos in Bailey's book caught my eye as well: Trig doesn't just look chubby, his face does seem oddly swollen. Could this have been caused by either worsening health problems associated with the DS, or by medications he was being given to treat problems? I really don't know, but I'd love to hear an informed expert medical opinion on the June photo in particular. If the original Ruffles/Trig did die between June and the RNC, the death should be a matter of public record. Unless, tangled webs and all that, no authorities were ever informed, and one or more stand-ins continued to play the role of Trig. Someone (Ms. Kat?) suggested that maybe Trig never existed, it was always a political ploy. What if that's half right? Now that would be plenty sinister/sad, with no incest involved.

Maybe someone needs to file a missing person report on Trig.

Ottoline

6/8/2011 11:53:48

So we have lots of odd semi-new data:

1. Baby EARS that don't match, indicating that more than one baby was passed off as Trig. Palin's verbal slip in the Gifford "Bridge to Nowhere" interview video (she says "ear form" rather than "earmark") suggests ears might have been on her mind.

2. We have babies at various SIZES that several MDs tell us don't match the stated age for Trig.

3. We have two puzzling PHOTOS: the Gusty photo and the Palin+baby office photo, said to be taken weeks apart, on 4/13/09 and 5/?/08, respectively.

--3a. Palin seems to be wearing the same hairdo (same length), same glasses, same dark oversized-sleeve jacket in both photos, and the sleeves are turned up in the same manner. A v unusual similarity of dress characteristics for photos so many weeks apart.

--3b. If the photos were taken the same day, Palin would have had to look 7 months pregnant in the Gusty photo and have a flat postpartum look (as flat as she appears elsewhere after Trig's "birth," even three days afterward). That would mean posing for Bailey in her office with the too-old baby, in the oversized maternity jacket and no fake belly; and after dark posing in the same hair and clothes WITH the fake belly for the Gusty photos and video.

--3c. If the photos were taken many weeks apart, the baby looks too old to be a 7.5-mo or 8-mo preemie. And why would Palin be wearing the same large maternity jacket many weeks after her figure was once again slim?

4. The date of the Gusty photos has always been in question. It is stated to be on Apr 13. If that is correct, it is the only photo showing this very large pregnancy belly, with smaller bellies exhibited before and after Apr 13 but before Trig's "birth."

--4a. If the two photos were taken on the same day, it cannot be Apr 13, which is before Trig is "born."

--4b. If the photos were taken in August, Gusty falsified her "for the record" video.

--4c. If the photos were taken on different days, how is the almost exact similarity of hair and jacket explained?

5. I wish someone with knowledge of the tv news world could confirm or deny whether the Palin/Gusty interview was indeed aired in April 13, 2008.

6/8/2011 12:06:42

Thank you to those who posted the ArcXIX items. Despite having followed this mystery since fall 2008, I had never seen the articles.

ArcXIX is certainly someone well-educated and observant, who'd had this story in mind for some time to write such a comprehensive piece in short order. It is a shame that no one speaks that frankly now.

alexis

6/8/2011 12:24:25

@ottoline

In the video "Andrea Gusty addresses the controversy around photographs of Sarah Palin". Gusty states that she " interviewed her live on april 13th" and that " local photographer dan carpenter took the photo as a favour".

I honestly don't think this aired on tv, otherwise why would everyone in alaska be shocked when this photo showed up online. Im sure they would have all seen the "live" broadcast on that sunday afternooon

comeonpeople

6/8/2011 12:27:05

molly malone
Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:54:06
Laura- One aspect of the Miraculous Misconception that may deserve a post of its own is what would have happened to Palin, from a medical standpoint, had her body actually morphed from flat to Gusty over such a short period of time.

I do remember reading somewhere that such a rapid increase would not only have been excruciatingly painful, but would probably have required hospitalization as well. Guess what I'm asking here is, if this were to actually happen to a person, under what circumstances would it be possible? What would have to be happening internally? What would be the predictable consequences, and why?

I think you'd have a ruptured uterus, if you went from flat to Gusty in a few days. Painful death....like a seagull swallowing an alka seltzer and then having his insides blow up.

FrostyAK

6/8/2011 12:31:16

We have to remember that the closer to truth we get, the more flying monkeys will arrive. Many will pretend to be 'helping', while in fact distracting. $P's MO has always been to distract the MSM with something shiny when feeling cornered.

That does not mean that we should dismiss all unknowns out of hand. Maybe Laura or Brad could find a way to sort through all the theories (except the "palin fairy tale trolls" postings), and post them in some sort of concise form for comments? It would make things easier to follow.

Hopefully much of the investigation going on here will find it's way into Brad's research paper.

Thanks to both Laura and Brad for airing this travesty for the world to see.

alexis link

6/8/2011 12:44:15

Does anyone know if the gusty video aired live on tv april 13th, 2008???

I think i've become confused with all these theories

thanks

viola

6/8/2011 12:47:06

Alexis, what a great sleuth you are! Arc + 21. What Arc wrote are very passionate words. I believe this is someone who knows something and was slammed down. There are people who know the truth. I have to believe that.

ginny

6/8/2011 13:08:29

alexis, I think this video interview DID air live on the evening news that day, April 13 2008, because it was kind of a big deal in AK that the special legislative session had finally adjourned. Well, it was a big deal to those who followed politics and the business of their state gov anyway. If you go watch Gusty's youtube where she addresses the rumors of a faked photo, at the end of that segment the entire original live interview is there, including the lead-in from the studio anchor that night. I just don't think that many people would be quiet if Gusty was pretending something aired that day if it actually had not. Remember, none of the people working for the news station are bound by HIPAA laws, like the medical personnel are, and any one of them could have spilled the beans, for big bucks no less, when Gusty was defending herself against the fake photo rumors.

alexis

6/8/2011 13:18:44

Everyone remembers when palin had her email hacked in 2008 right. Well if you go to the screen shot of her inbox on wikileaks there is a folder called "emails for Arc". hmmmm.....

Perhaps the person who hacked into her email is the same Arc XIX and left a little " calling sign".

Mayber im reading to much into it and need some sleep.

Here is the link..

http://www.wikileaks.ch/wiki/VP_contender_Sarah_Palin_hacked

SLQ

6/8/2011 13:25:27

Hmmm. I just read the DKOS original article for the first time. One of the first comments suggests that this could be the reason for the extreme animosity toward Trooper Wooten. Does anyone have a feel for the timing of the Wooten issue as opposed to the earliest suspected time that Bristol could have gotten pregnant?

My thinking is that the Wooten issue came up before the fall of 2007. I'm reading Blind Allegiance now, so will look back, but I believe he says he first heard about Wooten at the initial security conference after the election, and pre-inauguration, which would have been Nov-Dec 2006? And if perhaps Bristol is Trig's mother, she wasn't pregnant until sometime in late spring/early summer 2007, right? But . . . it's possible something was going on before that? Just another crazy theory for a crazy hoax.

I recall that Wooten called Bristol a f$&*ing b&*%h, which was one of the reasons they were "afraid" of him. Why did he call her a filthy name?

SLQ

6/8/2011 13:37:51

Also, one of the commenters at DKOS suggested this:
"So FOIA the pictures. I know at least Ohio has a state FOIA law. Perhaps Alaska does too?

If so, do a Freedom of Information Act request and get all of the pictures containing the governor that have been on the public website in the last two years, including removed ones."

Does anyone know if anyone has ever pursued this?

alexis

6/8/2011 13:50:21

@SLQ i read that aswell. Just googled him and saw a pic for the first time.

I think ill sleep on that one before i start analyzing more ears.....

Frank bailey states in his book that the issue was first mentioned to him in early oct/06. But sounds like the issues within the family started prior.

Dunn's book states they seperated in early 2005. I dont' know when they actually divorced.

Ottoline

6/8/2011 14:05:06

alexis -- can you think of any way to document whether the video was part of news on Apr 13 or the next day. The station's online archives are long since deleted. We'd need to prove a negative: that it was not aired. The only thing I can think of is some one person on the tv station's staff knows where there is an archival tape of actual broadcast material that day. Or a transcript or audio. You'd think they'd have that, not necessarily freely available to the public. Documenting that Gusty lied would bring us a giant step closer.

6/8/2011 14:13:03

@Sally. Audrey, not Morgan, consulted an expert about the Gusty photo.

There was something tricky about the pixels at the neck, as if a necklace had been removed, and as Brad posted recently the resolution was lowered in uploading, which seemed to be deliberate to make the picture harder to analyze.

I accept the photo as April 13 at the end of the legislative session. Palin has decided to "give birth" during the night of the 17-18th when no one expects her to even be in town, so she wore the full empathy belly that day. (And since with Palin their are no consistencies, she later says she was allowed to fly because she NEVER got big with this pregnancy.) After the Daily Kos article, she or McAlister remember Gusty has the one full-belly photo and get it posted anonymously under Eric-Bethal-zipcode or something. It does the trick. Even the usually reliable FactCheck relies on it.

Anon

6/8/2011 14:28:44

I just read the post Sarah Palin Is NOT The Mother?? (Video and Photos), which appears to have been first posted Aug. 30, 2008 at DKOS and then reposted at
http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin-is-not-the-mother-video-and-photos/.

I first read this post by ArcXIX soon after it was posted in 2008 and my attention was directed to the details supporting the claim that Sarah did not give birth to Trig. What strikes me today on rereading the post is how detailed and cohesive are the details given to support the claim. This was one day after McCain announced Palin as his pick for VP. How was someone - anyone - able to have gathered all of information about Bristol being out of school for months, the pictures of Bristol's baby bump and of Sarah's miraculously flat belly, the story of the wild ride - all in just one day? It's as if all of this material previously had been gathered and organized and was just waiting to be sprung on the public.

Has the identity of ArcXIX ever been disclosed? Had ArcXIX ever posted at DKOS before? Was this oppositional research that had been prepared in advance for this purpose? That seems unlikely to me - it's not as if Palin was an obvious pick for McCain. I could almost believe it was written by the McCain campaign as a preemptive strike in an attempt to inoculate the campaign against the rumors already circulating - it was one of the reasons the MSM was afraid to touch it at that time. ArcXIX's post just seems too pat, given the time frame involved. And I could almost believe this if were it not for Ruffles.

(Not that anything I've just said in any way goes to refute that Sarah was not pregnant with Trig.)

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 14:41:00

A couple of phrases caught my attention.

This one from Wholy Mary "let sleeping dogs lie"
and someone mentioned finding some poisoned meat. "Coincidence" or are these in reference to the house fire?

Perplexed

6/8/2011 14:54:21

Could some facet of assisted reproductive technology (e.g., frozen embryos, an egg donor, a sperm donor, a surrogate mother) be involved in this mystery? Wholy Mary says that she can say who the mother is, but cannot say who the mother and the father are. This cryptic statement would make sense if either a surrogate mother or a donated egg were involved. She gave herself a name that connotes both "immaculate" conception and purity (of motive?). Was she dropping a hint or making a mistake when she typed WHOly Mary? Women's health organization? Why is she unable to say anything more for what is "likely" to be close to "another" eight months? What does she mean by a doctor who is not an M.D. but works in "another specialized field of medicine"? A Ph.D. who works in the field of assisted reproduction? Anonymous 4:32 seems to hint at the same sort of scenario when she mentions a rumored skirmish over whose name(s) will appear on the birth certificate, refers vaguely to "medical specificities," and says that she can say in good conscience who did not "give birth," but not who did. Speculation along these lines suggests answers to many of the nagging questions--why several babies might be involved, why a pregnancy might be suddenly contrived, why there might be "innocent victims," even why there might be a "spiral of silence" about these events. But Wholy Mary and/or Anonymous 4:32 may be wholly insincere, I may be misinterpreting their comments, and idle speculation along these lines may be both fruitless and morally questionable.

SLQ

6/8/2011 15:02:32

Thinking more about the Trooper Wooten theory, it does explain the extreme animosity, especially from Todd (you'd think it would be $arah as the driving force, as she is the sister).

BUT, it does not explain the involvement of the Johnston's, which seems very obvious, given the Triggybear photos(and if Wholy Mary is correct in who is involved).

Also, they threw everything at Wooten (he shot a moose! he used a taser! he drove his kids to school in his squad car!). This was reportedly about child custody, and if that's the case, it would seem that if there was another incident involving a child, that would have been the perfect evidence to get him fired and custody awarded to the mother. Of course, it would also involve airing some very messy family laundry.

Banyan

6/8/2011 15:31:38

I've been reluctant to weigh in on this, since my "knowledge" of rapid amniotic fluid build-up is more from text-books than personal, or direct professional, experience.

But..there is a condition known as "polyhydramnios" in which the amniotic fluid in the uterus is not recycled properly by the fetus.

Normally, amniotic fluid circulates through the baby's body -- the baby drinks it in (about a pint a day) and pees it out again and drinks it in again.

I know this may sound gross but we've all "been there and done that." About 1/3 of all the amniotic fluid is recycled in this way every hour.

Obstructions in the baby's digestive tract (not uncommon in DS) can leave a baby unable to process amniotic fluid in a timely manner, leading to rapid amniotic fluid build-up.

This condition would indicate the need for (often very complicated) surgery after birth and would necessitate a high risk OB/NICU setting at delivery.

It is a condition that would almost certainly be noticed in the process of competent prenatal screening.

It would be considered a major complication of an already complicated pregnancy (at least as described by Palin) and would have involved very careful oversight and intervention (such as regular amniocentesis) to keep under control.

NO pregnant woman with this condition would be flying off to Dallas to give a speech.

IMO, varying sizes of pillows and pregnancy belly forms makes much more sense of the discordant belly sizes seen in the Palin pics during her "last" and only (?) "month" of this mysterious "gestation."

Banyan

6/8/2011 15:41:17

IVF and a surrogate mom-- someone who would be "a mother duck to that baby" -- is certainly a possibility -- especially for a woman in her forties who's already had a "two-bull."

It would be a risky, long-shot, gamble, since many such pregnancies do not "take." But a DS embryo could have been deliberately selected and implanted. (Didn't Sarah and Bristol make a mysterious trip to NY together in 2007? To see an unscrupulous fertility doc, perhaps?)

If this is, indeed, the scenario, DNA testing would show Sarah to be the genetic mother.

Not likely, but something to consider.

Heidi3

6/8/2011 15:47:54

To molly malone & comeonpeople -
With regard to your questions about a rapidly expanding uterus, 'Next Chapter', on her blog "Palin's Peyton Place", has written a masterful article dated 3-20-11, explaining the catastrophic physical changes that would have been involved:

http://palinpeytonplace.blogspot.com/

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 15:58:26

@ Banyan

Would this have something to do with induction?

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 16:19:06

@ SLQ

Should we prepare for 'shock waves' on Friday?

alexis

6/8/2011 16:23:42

The only time i've seen someone's abdomen expand that rapidly was due to some pathology.

For example liver failure and developing ascites( fluid in the abdomen)..

And that goes for a man or a women..

But now i'm stuck looking into more about this wooten character

Ginger

6/8/2011 16:52:11

Just dropped by to see the latest and I find all this talk about "Gusty." How will bringing her back into this help anything? And also now we have those photos Frank Baily put in his book supposedly of Trig. More distractions.

How can anyone not know that Ruffles and Trig are two different babies? They are trying to drive everyone crazy looking at babies ears. Were the pictures of Trig in Bailey's book planted? It wouldn't surprise me!

Listen, we all know Bristol was pregnant starting in Dec., 2007. Why does everyone think she had a preemie? She looked like a pretty healthy teenager to me. I don't know what the odds are but I would think they would be greater to carry a baby to full-term, rather than to have a preemie.

I think Bristol got pregnant the last week of July while Sarah was in Kuwait. That ties in with a birthdate around April 17/18, 2008 and the e-mail to Sarah from her insurance company asking for her newborn's b/c.

Did anyone see Bristol in March or the beginning of April? That was until she walked out of Mat-Su on April 19, 2008 and not pregnant.

To my knowledge, we only saw Ruffles twice. In the Palin kitchen with Mercede and Levi and the next day at the baby shower. He was the borrowed baby. Tripp, I think, is under contract to the Palins. He is the cornerstone that holds Sarah's whole fake pregnancy together.

It amazes me that no one can see why it is so important to the Palin camp to keep this crazy "two-baby" story alive.

alexis

6/8/2011 16:58:08

@ginger

"Tripp, I think, is under contract to the Palins"

Could you expand more on that with regards to tripp??

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 17:03:35

@ Ginger

Who is Tripp on loan from?

SLQ

6/8/2011 17:03:36

Who Knows: I have no idea what the e-mails will reveal. I hope they have something that will show the truth, and that's what all this hoopla has been about the last few days.

Something's surely brewing.

SLQ

6/8/2011 17:26:26

You know, Ginger has been very consistent with her comments about the letter from the state benefits division.

Her theory definitely conflicts with both Wholy Mary (look for the father) and Anon 4:32 (Trig's birth was earlier than stated, Tripp was later than stated).

Ginger is very well spoken. Perhaps her theories are not simply theories?

Ginger, if that's the case, you might want to be a little more explicit. With the varying "inside information" people the last few days, it's a bit dizzying. I realize that's the intention, but we who are not on the inside don't know who to believe.

SLQ

6/8/2011 17:37:54

In case anyone wants to look at what Ginger is talking about, here's a link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/02/the-palin-emails-ii/190607/

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 18:17:09

I wonder if the "one nation" bus tour will be hitting the road again anytime soon? You know -- Join the "Fundamental Restoration of America".

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 18:31:22

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 18:33:37

Did anybody ever figure out who "Toki de la Vega" is
-- maybe viola could shed some light on this?

K.M.R

6/8/2011 20:18:48

Could Wholy Mary be Sherry Johnston? She was sentenced in December of '09 for 3 years. http://tinyurl.com/4xpm73y

Could this mean that she'll be able to speak in 8 months when her time has been served?

ginny

6/8/2011 20:39:12

I think that if there is one thing we've learned about SP over the last ~3 years, it's that she is NOT a planner. She doesn't like to plan, and she is NOT good at it. She can't stick to scripts and her MO is to fly by the seat of her pants, making last minute decisions or changes to any plans. She goes with her gut on what to say in response to controversy or criticism.
In light of knowing this very strong and ingrained part of her personality, I think is is highly unlikely that there was any kind of surrogate mother, in vitro fertilization, or anything of that nature. It simply involves WAY too much planning, not to mention money. Plus, finding a fertility doctor that would be unscrupulous enough to be in on this? Especially if it involved using a DS embryo purposefully? I think there odds are heavily, heavily stacked against that possibility. Too much planning, too much money, too many people "in the know".
I think each decision that Palin made during the events surrounding Trig's gestation and birth were mostly NOT planned ahead, instead were made in response to mini-crises or events as they happened.
Also, remember: Palin also likes to keep things hidden (information, etc) and very likely involved as few people as possible who knew what was really going on.

6/8/2011 20:39:16

Here's why I don't agree with Ginger.

First, I don't think that a reminder to send in a b/c is an indication of when the birth took place. The b/c could have already been overdue.

Second, announcing that Bristol was pregnant was a politically risky thing to do - and not necessary if she wasn't pregnant. Could they really be sure that they wouldn't lose the fundie vote?

Third, the existence of Tripp (certainly not a Sarah-sanctioned name) means that Bristol has to act as his mother *forever* - or the lie falls apart. Now, perhaps they did not think that far ahead, but it seems to put a huge reliance on Bristol never to break. Even if there's a nanny taking care of the kid, she still has to do some duty some time.

BTW, both Bristol and Sarah now have houses in Arizona. Perhaps that's so Bristol can see Trig...

Bonnie Post

6/8/2011 21:26:05

Here is my take. The Trig seen in the hospital picture is the Trig we see now and he was a few months old in that picture. They figured they could get away with an older child in still pictures but needed to have a younger baby in situations where he was going to be held.

So ruffles is used for the shower but pictures were taken without Sarah in the kitchen event. (I know Sarah is in one of the pictures but think it was photoshopped since it is the only one in the series that is in sepia.)

One question is why would they use a baby with such a recognizable deformity which would suddenly disappear? I think that is just Sarah and for a long time she got away with it. She is still getting away with it as far as the MSM goes.

Which baby did she take to work?

Exp:Nov05/08

6/8/2011 21:34:04

@ Banyan: it's true. I lost a baby this past January at 21 weeks gestation due to posterior urethral valves - a condition characterized by a blockage that develops between the baby's bladder and his urethra (afflicts 1 in 8000 baby boys. Some survive, with early enough intervention).
The baby drinks the amniotic fluid and pees it out - only our baby son couldn't expel it, so his bladder filled and it severely damaged his kidneys, and as a result, there was very little lung development. I had no fluid left when we had our 20 week ultrasound.

Further to that - I should add that there was absolutely NO WAY for me to hide my pregnant condition, even in my first trimester. I'm 5'4 and was 130 when I got pg (this was my 4th prgncy), and weighed 155 when I delivered a stillborn. No way to cross my legs at the thigh and lean forward, no powering up a hill in heels, no hiding my belly with a scarf, no looking like an hourglass with a belt, and that was at only 5 mos.. I did some experimenting with scarves and heels for fun. I should have taken photos when I tried to wear a belt on Halloween (3 mos. pg). I looked like a bell!

SP was not pregnant with Trig.

I'm not surprised she did this, but quite shocked she's so far pulled it off. Then again, the woman is a stone-cold sociopath. The silence surrounding this and the visceral reaction from people about it (those who believe it was a fake pregnancy or not) drive that point home for me. Sociopaths scare people on a gut level and everyone close to them is nervous and defensive and secretive. Also their victims and enablers by proxy are usually all sucked in by favours, promises, expectations, and unspoken favorable gains and the silent threat of unfavorable losses.
Palin's (and those who are part of the hoax) silence has gone a long way on this one, but I feel like something big is coming.

Very thankful to Laura for her courage and fortitude. Also grateful to Brad for exposing the silence of this.

Who Knows?

6/8/2011 23:01:19

Does anybody know if Sarah actually knew RAM before the creation of the website C4P?

If so, C4P could have been created on someone's direction and that it's actually much more than a fan site.

Leona

6/8/2011 23:23:21

To BBsilla,
Please continue. You have more to say.

Ms. Kat

6/8/2011 23:54:29

Lidia17:

Menudo: exactly!

Ms. K

BBsilla

6/9/2011 00:26:14

@leona, I don't have more to say. I just think that endlessly speculating is beyond pointless and ends up muddying the waters. Some of the above theories are outrageous. However, the medical aspects are interesting. The fact that Frank B STILL fervently believes Sarah had Trig is interesting.

Wait to see if more is revealed via paperwork (emails) and on the record sources Joe M said he has. Because friends of the Palins won't talk. They treat Trig as if nothing is shady.

viola

6/9/2011 00:32:58

I woke up this morning with the Daily Kos story from yesterday bouncing in my brain.

Whoever broke the pregnancy hoax on Daily Kos was not a journalist. The voice is angry and accusatory. It is less a presentation of facts than a full-scale attack. And remember, that came bursting out of nowhere. There were no rumors in the lower 48. It was on Aug 30, 2008. A cry from the wilderness.

It could have only come from someone who KNEW Sarah lied and that Trig was her grandson.

And what happened next? The Gusty photo. With that ONE photo, Daily Kos removed the story. So how long was it between the attack and the removal of it?

Now, if you were ArcXIX (or Association of Retarded Citizens 21 as Alexis decoded) and you were so immediately shot down, what would you do? If this were a movie, and you watched others who knew-- like Sherry get arrested or Dar be murdered-- wouldn't you clam up?

Brad and Laura, I've read all the Palin blogs for three years (and commented regularly in several different names), but I've never read an analysis of the Daily Kos post. In fact, until Akgrrrl posted the link, I had thought it had totally vanished.

Please consider doing a post on that topic. About how writers get to write on Daily Kos, how long it took to get the retraction done, who ArcXIX might be etc. And how this was the first public declaration of the hoax.

Please. consider. this.

Leona

6/9/2011 00:38:52

To BBsilla,
Why won't anyone in Wasilla talk? The Palins have precious few real friends. They are known for threatening people. Why don't the people in Wasilla develop a collective backbone and expose Sarah and Todd for the con artists they are?

Who Knows?

6/9/2011 01:06:15

I just can't get over how many young people who are "collateral damage" in this sad, sad saga: the Palin kids/grandkids, the Johnstons, the kid from Pennsylvania, that "hacker" from Tennessee, et al.

Again, this is a story not to be believed.

comeonpeople

6/9/2011 01:14:56

Heidi3
Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:47:54
To molly malone & comeonpeople -
With regard to your questions about a rapidly expanding uterus, 'Next Chapter', on her blog "Palin's Peyton Place", has written a masterful article dated 3-20-11, explaining the catastrophic physical changes that would have been involved:

http://palinpeytonplace.blogspot

@heidi: thnaks i read it when she first posted it.
I liked my exploding insides joke as Palin is just so ridiculous!!!

comeonpeople

6/9/2011 01:19:19

Ginger wrote: Tripp, I think, is under contract to the Palins. He is the cornerstone that holds Sarah's whole fake pregnancy together.

@ginger: well they did pretty good casting 'cause the baby looks just like "grandpa" chuckles, poor guy . He will be needin' "mama" Bristol's medically necessary chin implant one day. Yuck..I hope chuckles isn't the dad by some yound girl. When did Bristol make the mother duck comment agaiin?

6/9/2011 01:45:08

Maybe Ginger meant to say TriG not TriPP?

Tripp looks like Bristol/Chuck and like Levi's pictures when he was very young. (Can't remember which blog posted those. Maybe Sadie, maybe Bree.)

I believe Bristol was pregnant with Tripp but not as far along at the RNC as Sarah said. In mid-February 2009 she was photographed at the Iron Dog with her midsection stretched and hanging, very postpartum. (That photo was at IM.)

akgrrl

6/9/2011 05:06:41

Anyone know who "scotth" is who posted the Gusty photo on DKos?

http://web.archive.org/web/20080911114624/http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/17933/7330/417/579267

mxm

6/9/2011 06:06:30

Google Arc

this is the second result

http://www.thearc.org/

Ginger

6/9/2011 18:37:42

So many questions, where to start? I'll respond to "B" first. No, I was not talking about Trig. He was born to Bristol in April, 2008. (Read the e-mail). When the RNC decided they didn't have time (and they didn't) to deal with the b/c, they made Bristol five months pregnant. C'om "B" you have to remember this!

I'm going to address your fixation with Bristol showing up at the 2009 Iron Dog looking postpartem. Remember over at PD, we were looking everywhere for a picture of Bristol at the 2008 Iron Dog? To no avail did we find any shred of evidence. So a big F'You was sent to us when she showed up at the 2009 Iron Dog "looking all postmartem!" She purposely had something stuffed up her shirt and stood there with her jacket wide open for the world to see. So unlike Bristol...at least at that time. Shy, introverted and always trying to hide behind the scenes, this certainly wasn't typical of her MO.

The Palins love to do "stuff" like this. They have a PHD examing pictures of babies ears. They must be laughing their heads off.

@V...So, you don't think the e-mail has any significance regarding the birth of Trig. I find that interesting because the letter was dated May 21, 2008 and they were giving Sarah about 30 days to send in the b/c and if they didn't receive it within 60 days of the date-of-birth, they weren't going to pay anymore claims. Perhaps the insurance companies you deal with are more flexible. My experiences with insurance companies has not been that fortuate.

Before I sign off, I'd like to mention "B" (if it is the same person). She has been with us since Palin Deception Days. As you probably already know, she is articulate, intelligent and has been a real contribution to our efforts. A personal thank you "B" for all your hard work!

Ginger

6/9/2011 19:38:14

@Alexis and Who Knows...Since I don't think Bristol was pregnant during the RNC, the fact she came up with a baby (Tripp), stymied some of us. Maybe shocked would be a better word. After the election was over, I remember Sarah saying she held over John Coale, (GVS' husband), to take care of some loose ends. I've always wondered what those loose ends were.

Bristol had her pick of available babies to parade in front of the cameras. Haven't you heard her call Tripp my..."Gerber Baby?" Tripp's mother is very protective of him. I think she was his nanny up until people started making comments about it (me).

There was a picture of Tripp...much younger...snuggled in his mother's bosom...at an arena. Bristol was sitting next to them looking like she was on another planet. It was posted at Palingates but I can't find it anymore. However, I have it in an e-mail. I'm going to have someone come over and show me how to do links and I will post that picture along with the video of Bristol, blown-up, running into the school/church, thru the ice and snow, on Dec. 15, 2008 at 8-1/2 months pregnant. Trust me, that is a real eye-opener.

For now, that is all the information I have. We haven't seen Tripp since Jan. of this year when Bristol moved into her home in Arizona.

Who Knows?

6/9/2011 22:32:45

What if Trig (2) was born on April 18th but the "presentation" was AGAIN staged at a later date.

This time the cast of characters would include Lori Tipton (hint: Bob Lester from the Bob and Mark Show).
--------
This article is dated 8/28/08 - the comments seem really off to me. See for yourself. http://community.adn.com/node/129950

This article was written 4/18/08 but *mysteriously* updated 9/2/08. And guess what there's not one comment.
http://www.adn.com/2008/04/18/380134/gov-palin-gives-birth-to-son-trig.html

Published 4/22/08, modified 10/20/08 and again NO comments.
http://www.adn.com/2008/04/22/382864/palins-child-diagnosed-with-down.html

nenagh

6/12/2011 02:29:39

Huff Post: 10-21-08 and updated 11-21-08 published "Trig Palin Photos: See How He's Grown" slideshow.

The last photo in the slideshow shows SP getting into an SUV holding "Trig"..

Is it possible for a 6 month old baby to have gained such a tummy when he looked as he did in the early May 08 kitchen picture?

Many thanks..

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

The Neonatologist: Ear, Nose, and Upper Lip

Leave a Reply.

Laura Novak

Blogs I Read

Categories

Archives