The picture which Brancy posted on her Facebook page last Friday was the impetus for the discussion which took place here. And that picture can be seen below.
2010 post of mine, and which we had not seen a clear picture of until now.
Here are a few comparison graphics just to help bring you all up to speed.
|Original picture that started the controversy|
|Comparison with "Trig's" ears on the campaign trail|
|Close up of baby shower baby's ear.|
|Close up of ear from this new Trig picture.|
|Comparison chart of all of the ears together|
For those who may not have been around back in 2010 the "Tale of Two Babies" post received a lot of attention, and created a great deal of debate. Since there was essentially NO sightings of Trig Palin with the same ruffled ear appearance, people began to postulate that it must have been fixed. Or that is was a "trick of the light." Or that there were twins. Or, and this was the most disturbing of all, that Palin had done way with the defective child in some way to make room for the more photogenic child.
So the reappearance of the exact same defect in a child today who is identified as Trig Palin is a very significant event, and essentially puts a lot of the previous nonsense to rest.
So what does it mean? And here I am afraid I will not stray too far from the evidence on hand.
What I think it proves with very little doubt, is that, at least at one time, there was a substitution, and Sarah Palin passed off another child for the one photographed at the baby shower and in various places right after Trig's birth.
How many children were used, how often, or why, I will leave up to all of you to discuss. For me the only absolute certainty is that it did indeed happen.
Now I would like to move on to some issues brought up in the comments section of Saturday's post.
One of the questions posed was whether or not I am aggressive enough in my questioning of people with information about Palin's many scandals. Obviously that is a question which I cannot answer effectively because I am unable to see it objectively.
However I would like to point out that I have been able to establish friendly relationships with many of the people who first started off as nothing more than sources, and have benefited from that relationship by continuing to receive input from them, or corrections when I stray too far from the facts, when a more adversarial reporter may have found those lines of communication cut off.
An example of that arrived just last night in and e-mail from Sherry, where she said the following:
I have only seen Trig a few times but one thing I do remember is that when Sarah asked Sadie and me to accompany her, her sister Molly, Molly's daughter, Piper, Trig, and Bristol (who decided not to go at last minute) to the Judd concert with her, on the way there I was stroking Trig's cheek and I remember saying to Sarah that Trig sure don't look like he has down syndrome to me. I can't remember the exact reply but it was something along the lines of, he has a mild case, but when he gets older it will become noticeable. (Concert was in June 2008.)
How convenient. (By the way, there is no such thing as a "mild case of Down syndrome: you either have it or you don't. However there is a wide and range of possibilities as to how it will present itself in a child, and how much of an impact it will have on their features and developmental abilities. None of which Palin could have determined right after Trig's birth.)
Now as to the comments questioning the reason that I keep people's secrets for them instead of rushing to tell all of you.
Would YOU trust a person who blogged about every conversation he had? Of course not.
I kind of went through my mental Rolodex a few minutes ago and realized that there are still a number of juicy bits and pieces that would make some very interesting, and quite explosive blog posts, but I simply cannot share them until the people who told them to me, or who will be most affected by their release, give me the okay. There is everything from information about Palin's connection to Schaeffer Cox, Bristol's pregnancies, criminal goings on, eyewitness accounts of Sarah clearly not pregnant in 2008, and even definite evidence that Palin did not give birth on April 18, 2008.
However much of this would destroy the lives of the people who shared it, or, without confirmation, be easily denied by the Palin's and simply ensure that the person who shared them with me NEVER told me another thing as long as I live. In other words the damage would be far greater than the benefit.
Now before you get all worried that some secrets will NEVER be shared let me remind you that many of my most informative posts have been based on secrets that I had held for up to two years, and then was given the okay to post, or did so once I was certain that the person most affected was no longer in harm's way. (And yes there have been handful of times I was scooped because others are not as tight lipped as I am, However being first is less important to me than my integrity. And always will be.)
Now one last point of clarification.
In one of the messages it was said that the book, Fred's book, had been stopped. That is not entirely true.
What is true is that truly terrible, jealous people have done everything in their power to derail the project, often using other bloggers as dupes to help them to do so. However the book is written and we are still working to get it out. As was also shared it does indeed have some very interesting information to add to the evidence about Trig's birth and the forces that helped to cover for Palin, both on the campaign trail, and here at home.
Okay well that is quite a lot for all of you to mull over, so I will allow you to talk among yourselves and only contribute when there arises a need for clarification or correction. And please keep in mind that some of your questions can be answered by visiting the previous posts to which I have provided links.
Thanks, and have fun!
Update; Oops, I did indeed forget about the Tank phone message. Sorry.
Yes the other day I received a call from the recently fired Tank Jones. (Way to go Levi!)
I saw that the caller ID identified the call as coming from Rex Butler's office so I allowed it to go to voice mail. To be honest I really did not expect there to be a message left on the machine as usually Tank is very careful to cover his track's, But lo an behold there was one.
Essentially the gist was that he thought I was an honorable man, but instead I turned out to be a coward. What I had printed about him stealing from Levi was untrue and I should have just called him to find out the truth. (Yes, because he had been so honest in the past, don't you know.)
He also said that he "never took anything from that young man." and what I posted was libelous, but not to worry they would not be taking me to court.
Well of course they won't, especially since Tank should know better than anyone that proving libel is very difficult, and that all I need to do is prove that I was reporting in good faith information from a trusted source. (Which I was.) And since this same information can now be found on both Mercede's blog and Levi's Facebook page, that makes it pretty hard to say that I am "making things up."
By the way I think the fact that Tank called me at all is an indication that he is pretty worried about what might happen of Levi can get anybody to listen to his evidence concerning what Rex and he did to their client. And do you know what? He really needs to be worried about that!