Page 61 of 75 FirstFirst ... 115157585960616263646571 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 915 of 1114
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: *Rumors and Speculation* Did Sarah Palin fake her last pregnancy?

  1. #901
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,796

    Default

    Someone from Wasilla needs to write a juicy tell all.

  2. #902
    Elite Member WhoAmI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    I don't think anyone from Wasilla can read OR write.

  3. #903
    A*O
    A*O is offline
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! A*O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Being Paula
    Posts
    31,675

    Default

    I used to wonder why the Palin's gave their kids such stoopid names but now I see it's Alaskans in general.
    If all the women in this place were laid end to end, I wouldn’t be surprised - Dorothy Parker

  4. #904
    Elite Member WhoAmI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    ^^It's typical of people who want to feel unique, because they know inside they're really not. Maybe they'll name the next one "You-Neek van Palin". The Down's baby is named "Trig (or Tripp or whatever) Paxson Van Palin". Sad. They sent out birth announcements with a Van Halen-type logo. I saw an image of them but don't remember where--they're super-trashy.

  5. #905
    A*O
    A*O is offline
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! A*O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Being Paula
    Posts
    31,675

    Default

    Screw the birth announcement - I want to see the birth certificate.
    If all the women in this place were laid end to end, I wouldn’t be surprised - Dorothy Parker

  6. #906
    Elite Member WhoAmI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    It'll never happen. You think she's gonna pander to you libruls?

  7. #907
    Elite Member lurkur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,382

    Default

    I want to see some birth certificates, otherwise how do we even know those babies weren't born in some Muslim place?

  8. #908
    Elite Member Cali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    citizen of the world
    Posts
    5,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lurkur View Post
    I want to see some birth certificates, otherwise how do we even know those babies weren't born in some Muslim place?
    I just choked on my soda laughing at this. Awesome!

  9. #909
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Tuesday, April 28, 2009

    Pregnant with Piper? You betchya...!

    Since the beginning of the controversy regarding Gov. Sarah Palin's pregnancy, one aspect that has been commented on continually is that her appearance last spring did not mesh with expectations of a "normal" pregnancy.

    At the time of the announcement, March 5th, 2008, the news that she was expecting was regarded with utter astonishment. Although Palin claimed at the time that she had to announce the pregnancy when she did because "people were beginning to notice," and that her clothes were getting "snugger and snugger," in fact the only person who has ever stated this IS Gov. Palin. (Even the article in which Palin is quoted as saying her clothes were getting tighter has as its main theme the fact that no one - not even her staffers - suspected she was pregnant.)

    And a quick digression: I have always wondered, after reading this explanation for the public acknowledgment of a pregnancy that was allegedly already in its seventh month, if no one had EVER "noticed" her clothes getting tight, at what point would Palin have announced it? It's a fair question. Or would she have just showed up with a baby one day? She seems to be implying exactly that.)

    Not one person has ever come forward and stated that they even suspected Gov. Palin to be pregnant prior to March 5th, at which point she would have been – based on her own announced due date – approximately 29 weeks pregnant with her fifth child. Not one staffer, not one journalist, no one. One sole journalist, Cherie Shirrey of KTVA, within 48 hours of the controversy erupting in August, jumped to Palin's defense and claimed that she had seen Palin numerous times for interviews and "in the studio" prior to Trig's birth (implying that it was between the time of the announcement – March 5th – and the birth six weeks later) and that Palin was definitely pregnant. Here's the blog post I did about this last December. However, Palin's daily schedule (obtained under a FOIA request) for the two months prior to Trig's birth in fact shows not a single visit to this TV station's studio. I have personally written Ms. Shirrey asking her to corroborate her statement. I have inquired about the dates of these interviews, topics covered, and why no video or stills are available of any of these interviews. I have received no answer.

    After the announcement of her nomination on August 29th, one photo had appeared of Gov. Palin pregnant with a previous child (prior to the alleged pregnancy with Trig in 2008.)



    This photo was provided by her parents to the news media as part of a large group of family photos that were released very shortly (within a day or two) after her VP pick. Although in a couple of places it has been suggested that this is not actually Palin at all (based on the fact that frankly the woman in the photo does not seem to look much like Sarah Palin does now) neither the Palin family nor the McCain campaign retracted the photo or ever stated it was not she. This photo has been shown widely, specifically to cast doubt on whether she is Trig's mother, and has been effective in doing so. I believe that if they had been able to retract the photo by claiming that it was someone else and had been released by mistake, that they would have done so.

    Her hairstyle and general appearance actually are consistent with other photos we have of her from the late eighties into the early nineties. This comparison below shows Palin, I believe, looking very much similar to the photo of her late in pregnancy.



    (And, no, I have no clue at all why she is wearing a crown, so don't bother to ask.)

    Although rumored to be of her late in her pregnancy with Track (in 1989), as far as I can determine that's never been confirmed. However, based on hairstyle, my guess is that the photo is either from Track's pregnancy or Bristol's pregnancy two years later (1991.) Willow was born in mid-summer, 1995, and based on the surroundings, I do not believe this to be a mid summer scene.

    Regardless of the exact year, however, one thing is clear. Gov. Palin is not only pregnant, she is in this photo I would say larger than average, particularly so if this might be her first pregnancy. In precise medical terms, she's huge. This evidence of her being of certainly "normal" size (and then some) in a prior pregnancy has been largely ignored by those who support Palin. They feel comfortable ignoring this photo for one reason: we do not know "how pregnant" Palin is here. She could hypothetically be one day away from giving birth at full term, a point she never reached with Trig, who was allegedly born at 35 weeks. Palin might be, it's suggested, one of those women who just gets really big "right at the end." The picture therefore is worthless for comparison purposes, it's claimed.

    And – again – whenever this is discussed, the same group of "she got big right at the end" naysayers also serenade us with plausible tales of how they themselves, (or their wives, sisters, co-workers, what have you) never looked pregnant either. Every one of these people seems to know LOTS of 110 pound women who never looked pregnant and then, miraculously, gave birth to healthy seven, eight, even nine pound children. I am sure there are exceptions to every rule, but in fact, in nearly thirty years of working with pregnant women, I have never met one who looked significantly less pregnant on a subsequent pregnancy (unless there was a very good physiological reason, such as a single pregnancy following twins) than she did on an earlier one. It just doesn't work that way. I know, you know it, Governor Sarah Palin knows it, and deep down, every Palin supporter who tries to feed us this line of bullpuckey knows it too.

    Since September, I have been hoping that additional photos of Palin from a prior pregnancy would become available which would shed some additional light on this issue. Was her pregnancy with Piper, for example, as magically free of any of those pesky physical changes as her pregnancy with Trig apparently was?

    I can say now that it was not. Additional photos have been found, though regrettably they are not of the best quality. We have located two photographs of her taken in late November/early December, 2000, during her pregnancy with Piper. Both are from the archives of the Frontiersman, the local newspaper for the Mat-Su Valley.

    Originals are not available. We have the photos in three separate formats, copies made from microfiche (microfiche provided by the University of Alaska), Xerox copies made from the actual extant physical copies of the paper (in person at the Frontiersman offices), and digital photographs of the physical copies of the paper (also taken in person at the Frontiersman offices.) None of these methods are ideal. Yet, in both, in spite of the fuzziness of the copies, I believe she definitely looks pregnant.

    Piper was born on March 22, 2001, according to this article on her projected due date. The first week of December, therefore, Sarah Palin would have been around 25 weeks pregnant. She looks, well, normal. At twenty five weeks into her fourth pregnancy. This is, fortuitously, exactly the same point of pregnancy she would have been at when these famous "Super Tuesday" photos were taken in Juneau.





    Unlike many other photos of her taken in late winter / early spring 2008, where Palin seems to be determined to hide behind winter coats, trench coats, huge (and notably unattractive) floppy print scarves, tables, podiums, mannish black blazers, and her own children, these two shots are remarkably clear. She is slim-hipped and flat-chested, and, in my opinion, she shows utterly no signs of pregnancy whatsoever.

    Here are the two photos. The first, dated December 1, 2000 would have been taken sometime in the prior week, so let's say between November 24th and November 30th.



    The second, dated December 5, 2000, again could have been taken any point in the prior week: between November 30th and December 4th. In this second photo, Palin is holding something – I presume a coat – draped over her left arm. Here's our original:



    Here's one we sharpened to try to bring up some contrast between what she is wearing and what she is holding.



    Closely examining the photo shows a slightly greenish cast to the fabric in a few places. However, as the fabric falls between her body and that of the other woman it is impossible to differentiate between what she is holding and her dark clothing, due to the fact that newspaper "half tones" scan at 85 dpi, which is a very low resolution photograph to work from.

    In spite of the drawbacks of these two photos, the fullness of Palin's shape – in both photos - is impossible to deny.

    Palin's supporters – the "Sarah Palin had Trig because Sarah Palin would never lie" posse – have also stated that the reason Palin never looked pregnant with Trig is that in 2007-2008 she was "in the public eye" and "did not let herself go." These photos of her pregnant with Piper demonstrate this is false. Palin was in the public eye (she was mayor of Wasilla) and was also very fit (running competitively around this point in her life). How she looked with Piper in 2000-2001 should be a very good guide to how we might have expected her to look with a fifth pregnancy several years later.

    Why she didn't is anyone's guess. Mine is that she was not pregnant.

    posted by Audrey at 2:43 PM
    Palin's Deceptions: Pregnant with Piper? You betchya...!

  10. #910
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Thursday, May 7, 2009

    Enough is Enough

    The Palin Deception website began seven and a half months ago, and the blog only very shortly after the site. Since the very beginning of my efforts to document the bizarre inconsistencies, troubling anomalies, and reasonable questions about Sarah Palin's alleged pregnancy (as well as the outright lies told by her directly,) I have attempted to rely heavily on the considerable photographic evidence available that she was never pregnant. To that end, on this blog and website, we have published literally scores of photographs in which her appearance is completely inconsistent with a forty-four year old woman five, six, seven, eight months pregnant with her fifth child. By and large, the main stream media has ignored this evidence.

    This is made all the more ironic because the "Sarah Palin had Trig because Sarah Palin wouldn't lie" contingent has chosen to use a single "conclusive" photograph repeatedly to prove that Palin WAS pregnant, in spite of the fact that everyone must recognize logically that it is easy to appear pregnant if you are NOT (think of how many times it has been done convincingly on film and in theater) but it is nearly impossible to NOT look pregnant if you definitely are.



    This photograph was allegedly taken on April 13, 2008, five days prior to Trig's birth. The problems with this photograph have been discussed in the past, in numerous posts on this blog, (here and here) but I will summarize the strongest points again.

    1. The photo was released nowhere until after her VP nomination in late August.

    2. The photo was released anonymously on Flickr in low resolution by one "Erik99559" to an account that was created solely to release this photo (and one other taken simultaneously.) Andrea Gusty (the reporter also shown in the photo,) in January did state publicly that the photo was taken with her camera, but she never explained who Erik is or was, why this photo was released only to Flickr, or why this was done anonymously four and a half months after the photo was taken. It also doesn't explain why, quietly, some time in the last six weeks, the account and photos just disappeared.

    3. The photo was taken by a camera whose date was intentionally altered.

    4. The photo was altered after it was uploaded to Flickr to lower the resolution.

    Yet this single photo has been viewed as absolute proof positive that Palin was pregnant, and anyone who questions it is a "truther," "nut-job," "left wing looney" or worse. (Believe me, much worse - you should see my mail.)

    Today, yet another photo has surfaced which - in my opinion - shows conclusively that Sarah Palin was faking a pregnancy in April of 2008, and frankly doing a fairly crappy job of it. This photo was taken on April 8, 2008 - exactly fuve days prior to the photo with Andrea Gusty in which she is conspicuously (even largely) pregnant and ten days prior to the announced birth date of Trig Palin. No, it's not terribly clear, and all we have is a photo of a photo, but in my opinion it's clear enough.



    It was taken by a teacher, of a chance encounter between two students with Gov. Palin on a set of stairs of the capitol building in Juneau. Again, we see the floppy print scarf, tied in a full way, (again also begging the question why she continued to wear scarves - something she had claimed she did to HIDE her pregnant condition prior to March - AFTER the pregnancy was announced.) And again, careful examination shows the bulky scarf looking "poochey," but the LINE of the scarf on the left side of the photo (Palin's right), thanks to a clear side shot here, as it falls down against her body is completely, utterly straight. Contrast also the hand position. In the April 8th photo, her hand (clutching the two Blackberries,) rests almost flat against her abdomen. In the Gusty photo, she can barely clasp her hands in front of her.

    Look above again at the Gusty photo. Try to picture what would happen to a scarf as it draped down her body if she were wearing one. (If any of you female readers are pregnant, similar to Sarah's build and close to delivery, by all means put on a jacket and scarf, have a photo of yourself taken at the same angle and we'll happily publish it for comparison!) Now look again at the April 10th photo. There is no doubt at all. In the Gusty photo, for a TV interview, she is wearing some sort of device or prosthetic to mimic a pregnant appearance. She goes out of her way to appear pregnant, largely so. On April 10th, quickly dashing up the back stairs of the capitol, she relies on a floppy orange print scarf tied in a bulky fashion, and while moving quickly from place to place, the distracting floppiness and shape of the scarf did exactly what it was supposed to - mask the fact that there's nothing underneath. But - oh no - here are some pesky students who want a photo and, with no good reason to say no, she says yes. Bad idea. Because there's no six pound baby under that scarf. Not even close. As one very sharp blog reader said once, "Scarves hide hickeys. Not pregnancies."

    So when is the charade going to stop? When will the main stream media put a stop to this "emperor's new clothes" charade? When will someone say, "Enough is enough?"

    posted by Audrey at 9:46 AM
    Palin's Deceptions: Enough is Enough

  11. #911
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    An Alaskan blogger has been trying to see if he can stir the pot on the Trig subject. Here's his latest.
    Sunday, May 10, 2009

    Rumor Roundup.

    If you are one of my visitors who really hates teasers, than stop reading right now. Though this is not technically a teaser post it may frustrate many of you. I apologize ahead of time.

    There has been a sort of incessant buzz coming from Wasilla, as well as a few other places recently that has stirred up a great deal of interest and speculation.

    In response my comments section and e-mail box have been filled with people wondering if this is my doing or if I know what is going on.

    To both questions I have to respond with a not very satisfying answer of "I am not sure".

    I have heard from at least ONE source that my posts have caused some people to start talking amongst themselves in the wilds of Wasilla and perhaps thinking that it is time to start telling the tale that everybody is waiting to hear. But I also hear from others that everybody is waiting to see if Levi writes his book, and then decide if they stay quiet or start talking.

    For example I received this e-mail a few days ago, purporting to come from the CNN comments section.

    On a CNN comments page:

    "Wasilla Cowgirl May 8th, 2009 6:14 pm ETIf the MSM would seriously investigate, they would find there is more to this. SP is doing preDamage control (Bristol too) before the truth comes out about Bristols first baby. Hint-this is the 2nd and it's a sad, sordid story."

    I did a little research and may have some idea of who "Wasilla Cowgirl" is but hesitate to reach out because of her age and gender. I may have somebody else that I can send her way, but I have not yet pursued that option.

    And then there was this from our very own kygirl915 which many of you read in the comments section of my previous posts:

    Gryphen,I also live in AK and we are just waiting for the Trig truth to come out, I live just down the road from Wasilla and rumor has it that the truth is going to be revealed very soon, when the "time is right". I fact that she is "supposedly" anti-abortion, and that SHE had Trig is why people support her, that's what she runs on. Well guess what - that is all getting ready to change. So stand by everyone, there are ALOT of people here who want ALL the truth about her revealed. I also talked to someone who is trying to reveal the truth about her house, when she was Mayor she changed some of the laws that would provide the paperwork. But guess what there are some pissed off people ready to talk (to the FBI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

    And then later this:

    The people here are just plain tired of her, but at the same time there are plenty of die hards, and then you have the people here who just don't care, they hunt they fish and as long as you're not stepping directly on their toes they just don't care. I work with people from Wasilla that hang out with SP's sister's kids, and you would not believe the number of people that hang on her every lie, and sadly believe what she says. I'm hoping the people that are mad, will go ahead and make the contacts that they said they would, and do it soon, I just know that there are many things in the works.

    And just to make all of this seem even more valid, we have Governor Sarah Palin, the queen of the limelight chasers, staying away from a swanky function that would usually draw her like a moth to a flame, and sending the First Dude instead? That simply does not make a bit of sense to me.

    So even if I am very careful not to jump to too many conclusions, I think it is safe to say that SOMETHING is happening.

    I also think that it is getting more likely that neither I, nor Palin's Deceptions, nor even Levi Johnston, will be the ones to break this story. It almost seems as if somebody, it might be one of us but who knows, has ignited a fuse that will soon result in an explosion of information. And do you know what? That is fine with me.

    I have said so many times that I am sick of hearing it myself, that ALL I care about is learning the truth. I do not have to be the one that gets the credit, I just want to help to find out what really happened. And to learn with absolute certainty whether or not Alaskans, and the rest of America, were the subject of the biggest hoax in political history.

    I have every confidence that we are closer now than we have ever been, but like I said that does not necessarily mean that you will learn of it first on this blog. That would be nice, but I would happily read it right along with the rest of you from another source, and still feel satisfied at finally having the truth revealed.

    In the meantime I am playing a waiting game and hoping that the seeds I planted bear fruit in the coming weeks. Promises have been made so let us see if they are as honest with me as I have been with them.

    Posted by Gryphen at 5:29 PM

  12. #912
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Two more from the Palin's Deceptions blog.
    Good Morning Chuckle

    My email box is filled with queries about the recently revealed "Christmas - 2007" photograph of the Palin family, which was actually taken in September 2007. A post about this photograph (putting it into a context) is the works.

    Meanwhile, just so you can spit YOUR coffee all over YOUR computer screen (you were warned - best to put the cup down now) I'd like to share the following letter. It was written by "Sarah Stelfox" hailing from Alberta, in a "letter to the editor" response to Vanity Fair's recent article on Sarah Palin.
    I completely disagree with James Wolcott's description of Sarah Palin as "Margaret Thatcher with moose antlers," a term that is unfair to Ms. Thatcher, in particular, and moose in general. On second thought, I may have to allow the moose bit - for two reasons. Number one: Here in the Canadian Foothills, moose have a regrettable tendency to wander along the roadside, and when a car approaches, they panic, leave the shoulder, and run straight down the center of the road, oblivious to the fact that the car is both faster and stronger than they are. Number two: Although moose often have long legs and an impressive rack, their communication skills leave a lot to be desired, which makes them well suited to a solitary life in the bush, but somewhat awkward in urban settings, where logic and complete sentences are required.
    Thank you Sarah Stelfox. We could not have said it better.

    posted by Audrey at 5:20 AM
    Saturday, May 9, 2009

    Ho! Ho! Ho!

    As I have stated many times, it has always been my preference to focus on Gov. Palin's behavior and appearance regarding the "Who's Your Mommy? And What Does She Do?" conspiracy. I was - like so many other mothers - disgusted by Palin's behavior regarding her children during the campaign, first quite specifically her choosing to use the announcement of Bristol's then-current pregnancy as the direct - and sole - proof that Bristol could NOT be Trig's mother, meaning that Sarah then had to be, and second, the way she paraded and displayed the children like so many stage props. There's one video in particular in which she carries a rather inert Trig out on stage like a big stuffed doll, strides briskly around with him, then hands him off like a football. I literally cried when I saw it. (I can't find the link at the moment, but if I do I will update this post to include it.)

    OK, rant over.

    Anyway... I really have not wanted to focus on Palin's children but it has been inevitable that the children - in particular Bristol - had to be brought into the dialogue for the simple reason that Bristol was (and really continues to be) Sarah's only proof that she - and not Bristol - gave birth to Trig. No birth certificate, no doctor's statement, no happy family in the hospital photos, nothing. Just Bristol. (Oh, and "Sarah wouldn't lie." I guess we can't forget that.)

    So Bristol's whereabouts, behavior, and appearance are regrettably "fair game." And recently, two discoveries have opened yet more legitimate queries into just where Bristol Palin was and what she was doing - and how she "looked" - in the fall of 2007.

    When the rumors first hit the Internet the last few days of August, 2008 that Palin had faked a pregnancy to cover for Bristol, two photos were widely shown in which Bristol Palin purportedly had a "baby bump." The first, in which Bristol is wearing a green sweater, was taken at the Palin's home in Wasilla. I have felt confident dating this to 2006, based on the fact that we discovered another photo from the same shoot in which Todd is wearing a campaign button.

    But the second photo was a bit more troublesome.



    People said many different things about this photo. One of the first was that it was from February of 2008. (I always thought that was most unlikely unless Alaska is a whole lot warmer than I have been led to believe.) Fairly early on, a correspondent identified this photo as having been taken in Juneau - and sometime in the summer or early fall, as the mountain in the background - according to him - typically has snow on it by late September. That seemed reasonable, and from this we could date the picture with more accuracy. It had to be the summer / early fall of 2007. Why? In summer of 2006, Palin was not yet governor; by summer of 2008, Trig was born and he is not in the photo.

    I have always been bothered by this photo because - frankly - I never thought that the person in the photo that HAD to be Bristol looked much like other photos available of her. And of course the reason we are looking at this photo is the alleged "baby bump." Is there one? Possibly, though it did not look much different than the picture I felt dated from 2006. What bothered me more - a lot more - was how different and frankly "fatter" her face looked! But all in all, it's hard to tell, and you can't deny that she does look "full" in the middle.

    I never felt confident saying anything with any certainty, however, because dates just did not add up in my mind. Operating from the assumption that Trig was really "due" in mid May 2008 and born a month early, if this photo was taken "before the end of the September" whoever is pregnant here could only have been 4-6 weeks - at the most - too early to show no matter who it is.

    But one rumor that has persisted since the onset of this investigation was that Trig was born much earlier than announced. People have based this on numerous (and frankly very divergent) "evidence," not the least being that Trig - from the very beginning of his public debut in September looked much older and larger than you would expect a baby who, on Sept 1, was 4 1/2 months old and had been born prematurely. Other researchers have found clear evidence of a jar of baby food for much older babies (nine months plus) in a photograph of Sarah's desk from August on 2008 when Trig would have been barely four months old. Numerous people have commented that Trig looked much older than his supposed nine months in a recent promotional video Sarah did for the Special Olympics.

    And of course as was revealed on this blog several weeks ago - we have clear evidence that Bristol Palin's presence was "scrubbed" almost entirely from MySpace beginning approximately July 1, 2007. Why? We had our suspicions but could prove nothing.

    However, with the discovery of some additional photos which clearly show that Bristol Palin experienced rather striking physical changes between June of 2007 and September of 2007 PLUS our discovery that the Palin family may have intentionally released a "Christmas 2007" photo which was actually from Christmas 2006, it's hard not to have our suspicion alert level go to orange, if not red.

    Here's what we know:

    Several weeks ago, an alert blog reader provided us with this link. Apparently, these photos have been available all along but languished, undiscovered, on a UK photo website. Here's the link and here's another. (For this second link, you need to enter the site and you can search either on photographer's name (Andrew Testa) or "Palin.")

    These links were critical because it allowed us to date - absolutely - that the photo of the Palin family on the balcony was taken on September 13th (or 14th - there seems to be a bit of confusion about the date, but a one day discrepancy is not an issue.) We already had suspected this because Palin's agenda, released under a FOIA request, indicated that official family portraits had been taken in Juneau on these dates, but we could not prove that THIS photo was taken then. Now we could.

    One thing that is striking about these photos is that Bristol clearly shows signs of a weight gain, both in her face and in her body, when you contrast these shots with ones taken of her only three months earlier, on June 10, 2007.



    She is slim hipped, lean through the face, completely flat in the belly, and frankly not very large on top. And three months later - we have this:



    This is another photograph that we recently ran across. It was - we think - supposed to have been the "official Palin family holiday portrait for Christmas 2007" and it was obviously taken the same day as all the other photos in September. It was released for use in the Alaska Business Journal's December issue, but I still have not been able to determine if it ever appeared on the state website, or any where else for that matter. It could have been - but considering the fact that we have never seen this photo before now, my guess is that sometime between when it was released to the Alaska Business Journal and Christmas, the Palins changed their mind about using it. Hmmm. Wonder why....

    Want another comparison between June 10 and September 14? Here it is:



    And this brings me to the second interesting little tidbit that my ever vigilant helpers discovered. One of the things that has always struck us is the complete dearth of any photos of Bristol Palin between (now we know) September 14, 2007 and April 25, 2008 (when she posed in a candid shot with Mercede Johnston before Mercede attended the prom at Burchell High School.)

    Bristol supposedly went with her mother to New York City in October of 2007. She is mentioned briefly on the state of Alaska website as having attended a license plate art ceremony (now there's some fun!) in early January, 2008, and again - according to travel reimbursement forms Palin filed, Bristol was also supposed to have attended an American Heart Association event in Fairbanks in mid February, 2008 though no photos of Bristol that we can locate seem to exist for any of these. (Queries to the Heart Association about this event have been met with a surprisingly, even shocking amount of obfuscation and stonewalling. More on this in a future post.) But other than that, the public record is amazingly silent on the whereabouts of Bristol Palin between September 2007 and April 2008.

    One "sole" official photo seemed to exist, this Palin family photo released in the Kaylene Johnson biography of Palin, and dated to Christmas 2007. Here - naysayers have claimed - HERE is a photo of Bristol. Nothing to see here. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, you Trig Truthers you.

    Except, not so fast.

    Here's the picture released in Kaylene Johnson's book:



    It's clearly dated 2007.

    But here's a picture released in another Palin biography, Lorenzo Benet's Trailblazer.




    It's dated 2006. Every person in the photo is wearing the same clothes, so it's reasonable to assume it's from the same year. But which year is it? Who's wrong? Kaylene Johnson or Lorenzo Benet? How to know?

    Conveniently, every year at the Governor's Mansion in Juneau, the Governor of Alaska hosts an open house. Many high quality and reliably dated pictures are available of this event from mainstream media for both years. Careful analysis of the photos have shown that the decorations - specifically ornaments on the wreath visible behind the Palin family - are consistent with 2006 NOT 2007. It's not easy to see in the photo released in the Benet book, but when you really look, the conclusion is obvious.

    Here's the wreath from the Lorenzo Benet book:



    Here's the wreath from Christmas 2006, according to the official state of Alaska website:



    Here's the wreath from Christmas 2007, again from the official state site:



    It's obvious that the wreath in the photos from both the Kaylene Johnson book and Lorenzo Benet book is from 2006. A "typo" on Kaylene Johnson's part? An OOPS on the Palin family's part? Whatever the answer, this photograph is not from 2007. It's from 2006. Yet another "possible" sighting of Bristol from the time period in question is proved false.

    So - what can we conclude?

    1. In spite of rigorous efforts to locate one, not a single piece of photographic evidence exists of Bristol Palin from mid September 2007 until April 2008. This is a girl who had many friends with social networking pages. This is the daughter of the governor of Alaska, who prior to this time, had required her daughter to attend numerous "First Family" events.

    2. Photographs that do exist show a striking amount of physical change in Bristol Palin during the early months of the time when "someone" would have been pregnant with Trig.

    3. The one photograph ever released "officially" by Palin which purported to show her daughter in December of 2007 was misdated. By whom, we do not know.

    Stay tuned...

    posted by Audrey at 6:01 AM

  13. #913
    A*O
    A*O is offline
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! A*O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Being Paula
    Posts
    31,675

    Default

    The evidence is certainly piling up now. Bristol suddenly grew boobs between June and Sept 07! Must be all those hormones. And the Christmas photo evidence is pretty compelling too. I know finding suitable attire for Christmas photo ops can be a problem but would every single person wear exactly the same clothes in 2006 AND 2007?

    The cracks are beginning to widen in Palin's story. Come on grandma, fess up before you are busted and made to look an even bigger fool than you already are.
    If all the women in this place were laid end to end, I wouldn’t be surprised - Dorothy Parker

  14. #914
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! buttmunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    31,884

    Default

    Although I am suspicious about this whole thing I will say that boobs can sprout rather dramatically and quickly during the teenage years. It's kind of like those boys who grow 7 inches in a couple of months. Puberty is a strange a mysterious place...but I still think there's something fishy, boobs or no boobs.
    'Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.' Ben Franklin

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
    --Sinclair Lewis

  15. #915
    Elite Member WhoAmI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    Willow is quite chunky, too.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sarah Palin ethics investigation
    By Fluffy in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: September 7th, 2008, 01:00 PM
  2. The real Sarah Palin trap!!
    By *DIVA! in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 1st, 2008, 11:52 AM
  3. Sarah Palin: It's worse than you think
    By Sasha in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 31st, 2008, 05:07 PM
  4. Sarah Palin unlikely to woo Hillary Clinton supporters
    By NicoleWasHere in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: August 30th, 2008, 02:30 PM
  5. The pros and cons of Sarah Palin
    By NicoleWasHere in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 30th, 2008, 01:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •