Katie Holmes shopping in West Hollywood, and looking like a pear (04/15/2006)

SVZ · April 16th, 2006, 06:38 AM

ediebrooks · April 16th, 2006, 06:50 AM

I know I'm not the first person to say this, but if she really is pregnant, it seems wearing such tight clothes would be extremely uncomfortable.

A*O · April 16th, 2006, 07:44 AM

Riiiiiiiiight - so the bump has dropped again, the tits have shrunk and she's back in the fashion jeans..............

aabbcc · April 16th, 2006, 07:47 AM

^^ She has tits? Where? I don't see any.

asha22 · April 16th, 2006, 08:08 AM

That is the weirdest pregnancy bump i have EVER seen. Plus shes in skinny jeans????? NO WAY is she pregnant.

bella · April 16th, 2006, 08:52 AM

I find it odd that everyone says she's 'gone skinny' again. I don't see that at all. She still has very big thighs, as far as I can see!

tulip · April 16th, 2006, 10:45 AM

Those jeans are so tight, I can't imagine that she is comfortable at all.

On another note, I know she's a celeb, and has put herself in the limelight, etc. etc. but can you imagine being photographed this much and have the photos scrutinized so much?

HWBL · April 16th, 2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVZ

Look at those jeans in the abdominal area> they're flat as a pancake. This is anatomically impossible in the 9th, and certainly if you're carrying a Scientology pod, in the 10th, 11th, 12th or whatever month you're pretending to be! And what is that line in the breast area? Is that from the prosthetic she's wearing?

Kit · April 16th, 2006, 11:17 AM

She definately looks pregnant to me and I don't think her preggo bump looks weird at all...I've been very pregnant 2 times (currently AM very pregnant) and each pregnancy was different and I looked different each time....her face looks bloated her nose is even larger, she's definately pregnant. Maybe her pants are that stretchy material or something, I think she looks pretty normal.

bella · April 16th, 2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HWBL

Look at those jeans in the abdominal area> they're flat as a pancake. This is anatomically impossible in the 9th, and certainly if you're carrying a Scientology pod, in the 10th, 11th, 12th or whatever month you're pretending to be!

It's not 'impossible' I think they are just buttoned/zipped under her bump. You can see they are strained, and lower than they should be.

Somerset · April 16th, 2006, 11:34 AM

Holy cow, this woman cannot be pregnant. Those aren't even maternity pants!! And they're tight as all hell. And what is this, the 11th month? I agree with HWBL, there's something fishy going on in the breast area.
Kit, are you a Scientologist by any chance?

bella · April 16th, 2006, 11:44 AM

This does seem to be a phenomenally long pregnancy. They announced their pregnancy at the beginning of October 2005. Within a few weeks she already had a pronounced bump, of maybe 4 months, so if she was 3months when they announced it (the safety period), that would make it July 2005 when the baby was conceived. So it should be due ... *counts* .... 5 April 2005. Hmmm, seems it must be around two weeks (ish) overdue, yet she's still a happy little shopper!

I call Elephant!

HWBL · April 16th, 2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kit

She definately looks pregnant to me and I don't think her preggo bump looks weird at all...I've been very pregnant 2 times (currently AM very pregnant) and each pregnancy was different and I looked different each time....her face looks bloated her nose is even larger, she's definately pregnant. Maybe her pants are that stretchy material or something, I think she looks pretty normal.

You're not the only one with personal experience in this area

Anatomically it is, this far into the pregnancy, impossible to have a completely flat abdominal area and then a stand out straight humongous bump. The flow is more gradual, especially if the baby has descended, which - for her sake, IF she'd been pregnant for as long as we estimate she must be regarding when and how they came out with the news - in her case should have been the case already. As I said before, if you're as much overdue as she must be by now, she'd already have had induced labor. Every other normal woman would have been induced by now.

twitchy · April 16th, 2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somerset

Holy cow, this woman cannot be pregnant. Those aren't even maternity pants!! And they're tight as all hell. And what is this, the 11th month?

I also calculated 11 months. She really looked five months pregnant (or even six months which would make her twelve months along now!) when they made the announcement back at the beginning of October.

bella · April 16th, 2006, 11:58 AM

How do you all get 11 months? In all the reports I've read about their annoucement, Katie was said to be 'happy and healthy' but there was no mention of a due date? If this truely was a fake baby, they wouldn't give a due-date would they, or where's that some from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HWBL

As I said before, if you're as much overdue as she must be by now, she'd already have had induced labor. Every other normal woman would have been induced by now.

But how do you know how far overdue she is?