Well it appears that there are other bloggers out there who do not think we should stop pursuing babygate either.

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:  

Rumors, innuendo and inconclusive photographs do not a true story make, but the fact of the matter is that seven years after the birth of Trig Paxson Van Palin, there is no proof that right-wing sweetheart Sarah Palin is his biological mother and evidence he may be her grandson. 

If you believe that I - or anyone else - has no business pursuing the question of whether John McCain's 2008 running mate put over an enormous hoax on the American public because the whole idea is so . . . well, yucky, then you need read no further. Besides which, a kid with disabilities having a home with a family that has plenty of dough is enough for many people who are averse to questioning Palin's serial evasions. 

But if you, like me, remain curious about the evasions concerning her alleged pregnancy and Trig's birth, as well as her unwillingness to provide any proof to tamp down rumors that she faked the birth of the Down syndrome child, then stick around. Palin still will not even release a copy of Trig's birth certificate although she hectored Barack Obama to release his. 

This story deserves to have legs because the former half-term Alaska governor turned author and reality show princess and most recently Tea Party carnival sideshow freak not only has not gone away. 

She continues to inject herself into national politics, having campaigned early on for the 2012 Republican president nomination until even she realized that her brand was tarnished despite a small but hard-core conservative constituency that continues to cling to her every statement as if they were Biblical missives.

Gee all of that sounds awfully familiar to all of us here on IM. Nice to hear it said someplace else though, isn't it?

C and L then links to a post over at Kiko's House, updated from 2011, which does an admirable job of laying out Palin's birth story, as well as all of the reasons that it does not hold water.

The author, Shaun Mullins, also quotes from Geoffrey Dunn, Joe McGinniss, and Andrew Sullivan as well.

There are also a few quotes from Professor Scharlott, mostly a refutation of the two Trig's theory that many of you may remember he did not exactly agree with me on. (Actually I think I proved my point with this post, but let's not open old wounds.)

Interestingly enough the updated post was put up on Saturday, which was the same day that I wrote this post wondering out loud if anybody cared about the story anymore.

I have no evidence that Mullins was responding directly to my post, but it does answer the central question.

Apparently yes, it certainly DOES matter to quite a number of people.

Well, I guess it's time to roll up my sleeves again and get to work.

Bumped. Sarah Palin cannot resist jumping into the Hillary Clinton brain damage controversy. Of course she brings Trig along as a shield. Update!

Courtesy of the Poster child for brain damage's Facebook page:

Hey! Hillary’s brain is off-limits! Leave her health records alone! Democrats are right – scouring records of a female candidate is just politics of personal destruction, and for the media to engage in it would be unfair, unethical, and absolutely UNPRECEDENTED. You can’t probe a woman like that because, well, it’s a war on women! 

Bunch of sexist, big meanies engaging in something heretofore unheard of, for shame. 

America, you deserve fair and consistent coverage of relevant issues before deciding a Presidential/Vice Presidential ticket, so have faith the agenda-less media will refuse to push whispers and wildly inaccurate information about a partisan politician’s body part. (Oh, I know where THIS is going!) Goodness, no one credible would print lies, continually harass a candidate’s doctor, disrupt local hospital staff, or even offer to pay locals to give “quotes” about her health records to be included in a “research book” by a public university professor (your tax dollars at work?) which the candidate’s attorney will need to respond to. 

At this point Palin, or her ghostwriter, provide a number of links to Brad Scharlott's attempt to prove that Palin was not Trig's mother, and then this one that she offers as proof that she is.

Of course we dealt with that article back in 2011, which was not hard as virtually all of it was based on various reporter's impression that she seemed pregnant, or that her face "looked fat."

Including this one by Wesley Loy in which he claims that seeing a bump outside of her clothing convinced him.

And of course my response to that is simply this, and this:

March 26, 2008

Palin goes on: 

Thank goodness liberals are consistent in refusing to apply double standards, thanks to their disdain for hypocrisy – so they’ll come through once again! Rest assured these self-designated protectors of what they obviously believe is the “weaker sex” needing protection in the political arena will elevate political discourse. Apparently, Democrats demand their next chosen one’s brain must be absent. Opposition – go there exploring a liberal’s brain and you find nothing; or, find something and you’re just trying to distract voters from the REAL issues. (Okay did that make sense to anyone?)


See, the country’s just swell under the Obama regime (which includes any cabinet member who’d lie and prove ineptitude by shining the boot that’s now on America’s neck). With enormous issues to debate before choosing a Presidential/Vice Presidential ticket, have confidence no mean-spirited salaciousness will be pushed by “real journalists.” 

Nope. This just doesn’t happen at this respectable level of American politics. 

Just ask me. And Trig. 

- Sarah Palin

Then Palin offers this picture of her and little Trig as her shield against any blowback from this ridiculous post.

Yes, Trig is very cute. However his mother may be a psychopath!

Palin must feel awfully confident that she has managed to put the Trig controversy behind her at this point. Or else she would not be so cavalier about bringing it up all of the time.

And that is really too bad. Because I am quite confident that we have more than enough proof to convince a judge or jury that Palin did indeed fake her last pregnancy.

And if there are any journalists out there willing to reopen this investigation I would be more than willing to offer my photos, past posts, and information that I have gathered over the last six years.

Remember Joe McGinniss set out to prove that I was wrong about Trig, and in the end he became a believer. Whether he admitted it in print or not.

Update: Apparently in my rush to type this out I did not pay very close attention to all of the links that Palin used to prove she was harassed.

Believe it or not, she actually used this one to prove that trig truthers were barking up the wrong tree.

Seriously who looks at this and thinks, by gosh she was pregnant?

Update: I decided to bump this up to the top today after several of you asked me to do so.

I really never do this, but since so many of you were interested in this topic, and wanted to discuss it further I figured I would make an exception. 

Here are a couple of response from other media outlets to Palin's pity party/

The National Journal essentially agreed with her.

The Daily Mail covered it in depth, but was also mostly on her side concerning the Trig issue.

And Joan Walsh tweeted about Palin linking to the Salon article, which "debunked" the controversy.

I'm proud that @SarahPalinUSA posted @salon and @JustinElliott's debunking of Trig theories to attack the media's Trig reporting
— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) May 20, 2014

Do you think @SarahPalinUSA even bothers to read what she posts on FB? Or was she praising @Salon? https://t.co/ifP240fa35
— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) May 20, 2014

By the way I tweeted Walsh back and told her that Salon did not debunk anything.

I doubt she'll respond though.

Professsor Scharlott introduces the Palin Birth Truthometer!

NOTE: DO NOT SEND MONEY! ONLY IF SOMEONE WINS WILL MONEY CHANGE HANDS – THE WINNER HAS TO CONTACT YOU. BUT THE WINNER MUST PROVIDE VERIFIABLE AND IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT SARAH GAVE BIRTH – A VERY HIGH BAR FOR SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY NEVER HAPPENED. 

AS THE MERCURY RISES, SARAH'S FUTURE SINKS 

The Truthometer shows the reward that will go to the first person to provide verifiable and irrefutable proof that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Paxon Van Palin on April 18, 2008, at Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, as she claims. Individuals may pledge money to the Truthometer reward. By doing so, they agree to pay the pledged amount should proof be provided. An attorney will judge if any submitted proof meets the requirements of being verifiable and irrefutable. If no such proof is ever provided, pledgers pay nothing. 

To add to the pledge amount, send your name and postal address to brad.scharlott@gmail.com. That information will be kept confidential, to be turned over to the winner only if there is one. Questions? Call 859-572-5645. If you have evidence Sarah gave birth to Trig, send it to: Dr. Brad Scharlott, PO Box 17772, Fort Mitchell, KY 41017.

Wow! When it rains it pours doesn't it?

Didn't somebody just recently accuse me of no longer doing any posts about babygate?

Silly, silly rabbit!

Professor Scharlott finally has the opportunity to publish his carefully researched article over at the Business Insider.

Courtesy of the Business Insider:

Three years ago, a sitting state governor and candidate for the vice-presidency of the United States, Sarah Palin, told a story about how she had given birth to her fifth child, Trig. 

Some details of this story quickly struck many observers as strange. As more information came to light, some observers came to suspect that, for unclear reasons, Palin had fabricated her pregnancy and lied about it--initially to her Alaska constituents and later to the country. 

Palin reacted angrily to this theory, and it was quickly dismissed as "nonsense" by much of the mainstream media and ignored during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Since then, attempts to settle the question once and for all have been met with silence or anger by those affiliated with Palin. 

Although Palin's supporters have successfully framed lingering questions about the Trig pregnancy as politically motivated attacks, the fact is that legitimate questions remain. And the one person who could instantly and forever put an end to the questions, Sarah Palin herself, has refused to address them. 

This article looks at some of the questions that remain about Palin's story. In my opinion, given that Sarah Palin was a vice-presidential candidate at the time she told this story--and is still often mentioned as a Presidential candidate--the world deserves a final, definitive answer to this question.

(To read the rest of this article please click the link at the top.)

Professor Scharlott left out a few portions that he considered might be too much for the average reader to absorb, including the different babies presented as Trig, but if you want to read the article in its entirety (Including a preponderance of foot notes) you can visit Scribd by clicking here.

Joe McGinniss really brought the babygate story out into the national spotlight so now is the perfect time to start writing about it and talking about it, to introduce the idea of the hoax to as many people as possible.

Personally THIS is what I have been working for, lo these many years, and I am beyond thrilled to see the story addressed by so many people, at so many different venues.

Wow, is September great or what?

Professor Scharlott offers a $10,000 reward for PROOF that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Paxson Van Palin.

$10,000 reward poster

For immediate release: 

$10,000 REWARD OFFERED FOR PROOF SARAH PALIN GAVE BIRTH TO SON TRIG 

NEWPORT, KY (September X, 2011) – A journalism professor at Northern Kentucky University has posted a flier on the Internet offering a $10,000 reward to anybody who can provide verifiable and irrefutable proof that Sarah Palin is the birth mother of Trig, the boy she claims she delivered on April 18, 2008. 

The flier shows two pictures of Palin, one taken 23 days before the alleged birth, the other five days before April 18, 2008. The pictures show a seemingly impossible change in the progress of Palin's pregnancy in that 18-day span. 

Over the last three years, numerous Internet sites have made the argument that Palin must have faked the birth. Circumstantial evidence supporting their theory includes the fact that no hospital has verified the birth, Palin waited until her seventh month to claim she was pregnant and often appeared remarkably slender for a 44-year-old mother having her fifth child, and Palin has never released Trig's birth certificate. Palin supporters have said that pictures can be deceiving, and that it is absurd to think she faked the birth. 

Brad Scharlott, an associate professor of journalism, has read rumors online for years, and is now offering the $10,000 reward because he wishes to find the truth about the controversy. 

"The circumstantial evidence that Sarah Palin pulled off a pregnancy hoax, possibly to enhance her political standing, seems overwhelming," Scharlott said, but added that he is still open to the possibility that Palin did give birth to Trig, and would gladly give the reward money to anyone who provides proof. 

The flier says that acceptable proof would include, but not necessarily be limited to, medical records, a birth certificate, or notarized statements from hospital personnel involved in the delivery. 

For full details on how to claim the reward, the flier can be found at Scribd.com: http://www.scribd.com/doc/65089616/10-000-reward-poster or seen below. 

How is THAT for upping the ante?

You know $10,000 might even be enough to tempt somebody VERY close to the Mama Grizzly!

Bristol, Willow, Track, Todd are you paying attention?

Brad Scharlott gives Sarah Palin the chance to put the Babygate question to rest for good. Did she take it?

This was from the conversation that Brad and Laura had on her blog yesterday:

LN: People probably wonder why bloggers don’t go to Palin directly and pose their questions. And perhaps snorting, “Oh right, like she’d answer me” isn’t a good enough answer. Instead, I asked Rebecca Mansour many times on Twitter to respond to my blog posts. And I invited her, many times, to do an interview with me. It was only fair. And she was predictably mute. You, on the other hand, went directly to Sarah. Tell us about that, Brad. 

BS: I’ve revised my original Babygate paper as a magazine article. A couple of weeks ago I sent that to Sarah Palin’s Wasilla address, and she received it on August 15, according to the USPS tracking service. In a cover letter I asked her to respond to the article, and I also asked six specific questions that stem from it, such as whether she was truly pregnant in 2008 and whether she wore a fake pregnancy belly when Andrea Gusty interviewed her. I told her I planned to publish the article within a month, and I promised her I would include her response with it. Of course, she has not responded. So what can we concluded from that? 

LN: One, she’s too big for us. And I can honestly understand that (although word has it that she is afraid of me.) There are a lot of demands on her time. Why? I have no idea. But there are. Two, why add fuel to the fire? To respond to you and/or me, or any blogger, lends credence to what we are saying. She’s hoping we’ll go away. Three, like I said in an earlier comment. We use subjects and verbs. And we use them in agreement. I think Anon on Gryphen's blog is right: that scares her. 

BS: Well, if she did NOT perpetrate a hoax, there would be an extremely important reason to respond to my letter and article. In that cover letter, I wrote: “As you may recall from your journalism studies in college, you are considered a ‘public figure/official’ for First Amendment purposes, in light of NY Times v. Sullivan. By providing you this opportunity to respond to my paper, I trust I am demonstrating beyond any doubt that my article bears no ‘actual malice’ towards you.” Since I was forewarning her that I plan to publish the article, by NOT responding she essentially forfeits any conceivable opportunity to sue for defamation. That is not the same as admitting she is guilty, of course, but could you imagine an innocent high-level politician ignoring an article that made such sensational allegations of wrongdoing? After all, I’m not just any crackpot. Palin knows my paper in April made news around the world.

You know one of the reasons that has been offered up as to WHY Palin does not simply produce the birth certificate and do away with all of this speculation, is because IT WORKS FOR HER!

The argument is that because people keep bringing up this issue that it makes THEM seem like lunatics, and by refusing to shut them down Palin appears above it all and is essentially taking the high road. (In fact Palin often brings up the "conspiracy" about Trig's birth in her speeches. It ALWAYS gets a laugh and a smattering of applause from the audience.)

Now this theory was all but rammed down my throat by a good friend who wanted desperately for me to drop the subject. (I won't out them here, but I am sure most of you can figure it out.) But of course I never did, because I never bought into that theory. Nor did I believe that keeping the investigation into babygate alive was actually helping her.

Oh sure it gave her a laugh line or two for a speech, but does anybody really believe it helped to sustain her popularity?

But for the sake of argument, let's just assume that it did. Let's assume that much of Sarah Palin's ability to garner sympathy and appear relevant stemmed from the fact that her supporters felt she was persecuted by these "crazy" liberals who had the gall to suggest that she would fake the birth of her own child.

However the Sarah Palin of today is significantly less popular than the Sarah Palin of two years ago. We are currently witnessed the crumbling of her political aspirations, the desertion of many of her past supporters, and the dimming of her relevancy to the media.

Yet the investigation, and number or people discussing babygate, is now larger than ever.

Even an author as well known as Joe McGinnis has publicly addressed it, and there is a book coming out whose sole purpose is to introduce the topic to an even wider audience.  So even if the argument could have been made two years ago that the subject of babygate was helping Sarah Palin in some way, that argument certainly could NOT be made today.

But you know what might help Sarah Palin at this point?  Producing proof that Trig is her biological son.

Imagine how much attention it would garner if Palin were to suddenly come out and show the world that the crazies were wrong all along, and that she was just playing them for a bunch of fools. Think of how she could play up how her family was victimized by these horrible people who went after her precious children so aggressively all to prove something that her evidence now demonstrated to be false.

Hell her smiling face would be all OVER the news, her potential political career would be revitalized, and the donations would come pouring in.

Not only that but imagine her joy at embarrassing Joe McGinniss, Professor Scharlott, Laura Novak, and Andrew Sullivan. Not to mention squashing the reputation of a certain pain-in-the-ass Alaskan blogger.

Yep, if ever there were a time to finally shut all of us up for good, this would be it.

So what do you say Sarah? Are you ready to finally put us all in our place?

Laura Novak and Professor Scharlott discuss the difficulties of getting the "babygate" story into the mainstream media.

Courtesy of Laura Novak's blog:

LN: Anyway, I know that in this time since we’ve worked together, you’ve re-written your paper and pushed it out into the world a few more times. Tell us where you are with all of that. 

BS: I’ve rewritten it in magazine format. The original format was as an academic research paper, but it was in truth always more of a journalistic expose than a theoretical paper. The theory part, about the spiral of silence, was only the last five pages; the first 20 pages was an expose of Babygate. So in rewriting it, I have made its form true to its overriding original purpose: to expose the shortcomings of the press in covering Babygate, which necessitated exposing Babygate itself. 

LN: They go hand in hand don’t they? And I can say having read all the versions that you make an excellent case for both. Your writing is tight and sophisticated. And it’s also evolved as you’ve worked through the story. Explain what your goal was with that. 

BS: The rewrite is shorter, bolder, and much more forceful than the earlier paper. In the original paper, I avoided any mention of Gryphen’s “Tale of Two Trigs” theory. In the rewrite, I include that stuff. And I think the multiple Trigs idea has probably spooked some magazines from accepting the article. That does not surprise me. In April, I would not even mention in radio interviews the possibility of different babies being shown as Trig at different times. I did not have a strong sense then that that part of the story was almost certainly true and crucial to understanding what happened. But now I do feel that way. 

LN: And yet, the editors you’ve submitted to are still not biting. What kinds of things are they saying? 

BS: Here is part of a nice rejection note I got from a British publication: “Thank you for your interesting read. I am sorry but I am not sure that it is something we would take on as I would need to start from scratch to satisfy myself of all sources etc. and I am not 100% sure that even this would get to the bottom. What is needed is a whistleblower. Her daughter's doctor – or something.” The online editor of a different publication, one in the U.S., indicated he definitely would use my article, in fact would feature it, based on seeing my original paper. After I sent the revision, he decided he’d better check with his publisher, who said no. 

LN: How did you react when you heard back from both these editors? 

BS: Their reactions did not surprise me. If you haven’t really familiarized yourself with the facts surrounding the hoax, it does sound a bit surreal. 

LN: In your paper you are very critical of the press for being timid and easily manipulated by Palin. Now you sound sympathetic to those who will not accept your revised article for publication. Aren’t you being inconsistent? 

BS: Well, I need to draw a distinction. It was the press corps covering Palin in 2008 that deserves the most criticism. There were red flags back then that a hoax had probably happened. When the McCain campaign responded to the fake-birth rumors by throwing Bristol under the bus and claiming she was five months pregnant – and thus could not be Trig’s mother – the journalists’ bullshit sirens should have been blaring. (As it turns out, since more than one baby has almost certainly been displayed as Trig at different times, there’s no telling what relation Bristol has to the current “normal ears” Trig with Down syndrome.) As for current editors who are encountering much of this Babygate stuff for the first time, I can understand how they might find my revised paper on the very edge of believability, despite all the evidence I present. 

LN: So isn’t this a Catch-22: Many editors find the Babygate saga unbelievable because no one in the mainstream press has written about it, but no one in the mainstream press will write about it for fear that people will find it unbelievable? 

BS: Yep. That sums it up nicely.

There is much more and I do encourage you to to click the link at the top and read the rest at Laura's blog.

As most of you who have been visiting here at IM know all too well, this problem with being taken seriously by the MSM  is one of the most frustrating parts of this campaign to reveal, what may in fact be, one of the most amazing political hoaxes of all time.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the efforts of Brad and Laura to find a way to present the evidence in the most palatable way possible so that newspapers and periodicals will find it impossible to resist.

 I would also like all of you to know that they are not alone in their struggle to get the truth about this perplexing mystery out to the public.  Fred and his researchers have also been working their fingers to the bone trying to craft a book that will be difficult, if not impossible, for the MSM to ignore.

And toward that end they have started to carefully comb through Palin's recent email dump and discovered some very interesting inconsistencies. As many of you know, contrary to what Palin supporters and journalists at large seemed to think, there were things to discover in those emails.

I personally was able to find some very interesting emails myself which demonstrated Sarah's lack of compassion, proved she orchestrated fake letters to the editor, and convinced at least one holdout that she most likely faked her last pregnancy.

Fred and his researchers have dug even deeper, and hope to bring out some information that will impress even jaded "babygate" experts like us.

And if that was not enough to wake you up this morning, I also have a potential lead that may finally answer one of the biggest questions surrounding the "babygate" saga.

Stay tuned.

The National Examiner tackles Babygate. Finally!

The reporters from the National Examiner are only the latest to finally get fed up enough with this obvious fraud to finally decide to put it out there in print so that Americans can see for themselves how stupid Sarah Palin considers all of them to be. 

Interestingly enough NE is somewhat late in boarding this particular bandwagon, on which Andrew Sullivan is the senior member, though he is now somewhat less lonely having recently been joined by the likes of Laura Novak, Sarah Jones of Politicususa, Henry Blodget of the Business Insider, and even author Joe McGinniss.

And let's not forget the soon to be completed book dedicated to babygate which I have learned is right on schedule, and which, after some tidying up of loose ends and a careful vetting by the lawyers, will soon be delivered to the publishers.

Personally I am just glad that the bloggers are not the only ones doing the heavy lifting these days. After all of these years of ridicule and ostracizing from the so-called "mainstream media," it certainly feels good to blog about the research and discoveries being made on this topic by ACTUAL journalists.

Because I don't know about all of you, but I could use a nap!

Professor Brad Scharlott and Laura Novak continue their fascinating conversation over on Laura's blog.

Courtesy of Laura's blog:

LN: But let’s get back to the question of harm. What is the harm, Palin supporters ask, even if she did fake the birth of Trig?

BS: I would say that a pathology of fear has enveloped much of Alaska, especially the Wasilla area, over this issue. You have to remember that Sarah Palin is demonstrably ruthless, unethical, and vengeful – it’s good to keep in mind her campaign to destroy the career of Mike Wooten, her former brother-in-law. Plus, in the space of four weeks in late 2008 and early 2009, fires in Wasilla damaged Palin’s church and caused the death of a former neonatal nurse, Dar Miller. The church fire was due to arson; the cause of the fire at Miller’s home was not determined. Some people speculated that adoption records perished in the church fire, but I can find no confirmation of that.

There’s no evidence linking the Palins to those fires. But several Alaskans have told me that Wasilla residents fear they may suffer similar fates if they cross the Palins. Certainly Alaskans have good reason to fear they may lose their jobs if they anger Sarah Palin, as safety commissioner Walter Monaghan did when he refused to fire Mike Wooten. She may not be in power now, but many of her loyal appointees are.

LN: And I might add here that I know first hand about people who talk, and then clam up, because they know that people are whispering about them. I know about people in government putting pressure on reporters not to report. About newspaper reporters who were talking to me one day, and then shutting down the conversation the next.

BS: And then there are stories of people who know too much or said the wrong thing about the Palins, who then suffered vandalism or worse, such as the documented case of a car window being shot out while children were inside – the apparent reason: an anti-Palin personalized license place.

I would further argue, Laura, that this pathology of fear has spawned a pathology of deceit. You recently noted how all the reporters, editors and columnists at the Alaska Daily News have seemingly been told to sing from the same hymnal concerning the fake birth question – contradicting earlier actions by ADN staff – even though the newspaper provides no documentary evidence to support the claim that Palin birthed Trig. And as I’ve noted before, former ADN reporter Wes Loy, who famously wrote that Palin “simply does not look pregnant,” for some reason decided to recant, despite evidence I provided that directly contradicts his alleged change of heart.

I am reminded of the fall of Saddam Hussein. After the liberation of Iraq, Iraqis came forward to say how terrible it had been to live in a society where saying anything negative about Saddam could have fatal consequences, and that therefore they were careful, even before their own children, to never to speak too freely. Alaska is not Iraq, of course, but I am sure there are people in Alaska who likewise are afraid to say what they know about the Palins and who dissemble in front of their children, lest loose lips lead to horrible consequences.

Considering what I know about Sarah Palin I have NO problem with the Professor comparing her to Saddam Hussein, if we are talking about the heavy handed way they treat their subordinates and the fear that Palin was instilled in a handful of people living in Wasilla. But I must reiterate that I have NO evidence that either Todd or Sarah did anybody any physical harm.

Cause them to be fired, or damage their reputations? Yes. Cause them to lose their lives or suffer significant injury? No.

Having made that one point, I direct you to click the link and read the rest of this interesting back and forth conversation.  You might even see a name or two that you recognize.

Laura Novak and Professor Scharlott have very interesting conversation about Sarah Palin's photograph with reporter Andrea Gusty taken on April 13, 2008.

From Laura's blog:

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

BS: Can you tell us what those requirements were?

LN: I cannot. I assured him that our emails were private and confidential, and I have to honor that.
BS: Okay, so let’s get down to facts. The Gusty photo, which the McCain campaign people pointed to as definitive evidence that Palin had truly been pregnant, did a marvelous job of silencing most critics who claimed Palin faked the birth.

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

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

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

Laura and Brad continue to discuss the possible reasons for the picture having been taken, the possibility that it was staged, and some of the inconsistencies within the photograph itself.

I have never been particularly good with photographic analysis so I will leave that discussion to them, and if you click the link above you can enjoy their conversation for yourself.

There ARE a few things which I can add to this topic however. The first would be to provide this video of a newscast that Gusty produced to address the speculation surrounding this video, back in 2009.



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

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

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

Trig Palin may be the fastest gestating fetus in the history of humankind.

So Sarah Palin went from having virtually NO stomach, to having, what appears to be, a beach ball under her top in only five days.  WHAT an amazing woman!

No wonder some in the GOP want to tap her to be the next President of the United States. Just imagine how quickly she could give birth to an army of hard ass, take no prisoner Alaskans, ready to be sent over into Iran if they were to start some shit!

Do you know that the average gestation period for a mouse is 21 days, for a hamster it is 16 days, and for an opossum it is only 13 days.  Yet no where else in the world of mammalian gestation does pregnancy only last five days, EXCEPT apparently in the wilds of Wasilla.

But hey I know what you are saying, "Gryphen that is NOT fair!  That picture of Sarah is from Elan Frank's video and it might just be distorted in some way." 

Really?

Well here check that out for yourself. (Start video at the 4:25 mark.) Do you STILL think it's distorted?

But okay just to satisfy those who are still desperately clinging to the idea that Palin DID give birth to little Trig Paxson Van Palin (Yes, that means you Frank Bailey!), let's take a look at the gestation from March 14 to April 13, exactly 30 days apart.

(By the way science fans, it takes a rabbit 32 days to make a little baby bunny, and you know how fast they like to "pop them out.") 

As you can see Palin went from "What, you can't be pregnant?" to "Wow! That's quite a gut you have there!" Even if you are NOT a believer in "babygate' Doesn't that strike you as just a bit peculiar?

Now I am going to assume that most of you reading here are in fact human. 

Then I am going to go out a little further on a limb and suggest you may have been around a pregnant woman or two. 

And I am further assuming that there may even be a FEW of you who have had the "pleasure" of pushing a tiny human out of your body your own darn self. (Yes ladies I know, excruciating pain, buckets of disgusting amniotic fluid, screams of agony, I have been there. That is why I put the word "pleasure" in parentheses.)

It is to that last group to whom I wish to pose this question:

"How in the hell does a woman, any woman, grow a belly THAT big in only 30 days?"

Go ahead, I await your answer.

How are you doing?

Got anything?

Nothing?

Well here perhaps Brad Scharlott and Laura Novak can offer you a possible clue.


Psst!  Here's a hint:

And by the way, if ANY of you are dead certain that Palin DID give birth to Trig, Laura Novak is quite interested in talking to you.  Just send her an e-mail.

I mean, after all, isn't it time to FINALLY clear this up once and for all?

Laura Novak questions Professor Scharlott concerning Sarah Palin's pillow shaped "pregnant" abdomen.

LN: But let’s be honest: Couldn’t Palin’s appearance easily be explained by the way the black shirt folded under her bust and under her belly?

BS: Well, Laura, perhaps you should watch the video here: ‪Elan Frank Interviews Sarah Palin-April 2008 part 1. (Go to about 0:27 for the belly thump.) As you can see, the camera pans up and down from her face to her midsection, and you can see the black shirt is hugging her body – there are no odd folds creating an illusion.

LN: The shadows on the sides. They can be shadows, right? Not necessarily the contours of a SQUARE PILLOW! I’m sorry. I’m shouting again.

BS: Well, actually, Frank was using professional lighting equipment to ensure there would be no distracting shadows.

Sadly for me, I’ve never experienced a pregnancy up close and personal. My wife and I have adopted two children, but we have not had children biologically. So I have no good sense of what shape an eight-month pregnant lady’s belly may take. But I sense you are not comfortable with the square pillow shape. Why is that?

LN: Because I simply do not want to believe that this woman – any woman – shoved a square pillow under her shirt. I do not want to believe anyone could so smugly mug for the camera and thump a pillow. It’s abnormal beyond reason. It would be insane.

Insane?  You said it Laura! And welcome to my world.

You can read the rest of the interview by clicking here.

I do have one quibble with Professor Scharlott over this interview.  At one point he makes this statement:

I have no idea who deserves credit for first brightening this segment of the video, but for at least a few years folks have known that if you lighten a screen grab from this part, what you see looks remarkably like a square pillow where Sarah’s stomach should be.

That would be my dear friend, and the person who will also deserve the lion's share of the credit when this story breaks nationally, Audrey from Palin's Deceptions.  Who first lightened the photo here.

An important thing to keep in mind as this babygate story starts getting more and more mainstream media attention is that some of the best researchers and bloggers on this topic have now gone silent, like Audrey and Bree Palin. And believe me not a day goes by that I don't miss visiting their blogs, or talking to them on the phone, or sharing gossip and tips back and forth through e-mail.

However mark my words, when this story finally gets the national attention that it deserves I will make damn sure that the credit is spread around to ALL of the people who worked so hard to bring this story to light.

Just another visual reminder of how preposterous Sarah Palin's pregnancy story truly is. Updated!

This was sent to me yesterday by our friend Professor Scharlott.

I guess those who believe in Palin's immaculate deception might simply suggest that Demi Moore has padded her self to look bigger, except of course where would she put it?  Now THAT is a woman who would not have had to show her (covered) baby bump to prove she was really pregnant.

Seriously, who in their right mind cannot put these clues together?

Update: Newly corrected composite photograph has replaced original.  Thanks Professor Scharlott!

Laura Novak interviews Professor Scharlott about photoshopping and those famous Sarah Palin pictures.

March 14, 2008 photo with "Correct Camera Distortion" applied.

From Laura Novak's blog:

Professor Scharlot: Palin supporters generally try to ignore or belittle photographic evidence. Julia O’Malley, on April 14, in an Anchorage Daily News article with the headline “Make. It. Stop.” wrote this about my research paper titled “Palin, the Press, and the Fake Pregnancy Rumor”: “I read Scharlott's piece. It contains lots of innuendo and some widely-circulated Photoshopped pictures. What is missing from his investigation: facts.”

Notice her use of “Photoshopped” – the implication is the photos are deceptive. But in the case of the above photo, what deception can she possibly be referring to? The picture comes from her own newspaper! If she wants, she can probably go straight to the photographer who took the picture and get a copy from his or her hard drive, just as it was downloaded from the photographer’s camera.

She wrote that my investigation lacks “facts.” (The paper has over 40 footnotes, so it’s brimming with verified, factual information.) But a photograph is also a “fact.” Can she look at the above picture and honestly say she thinks Palin might be seven months pregnant in it? In her article she wrote that Palin’s baby bump was obvious. What baby bump?

Novak: Allow me to interrupt here and say that “obvious” is the last word I would use about this photo. I don’t know what the truth is, but there is no “obvious” pregnancy here.

Professor Scharlott: Exactly! In that same vein, I would like to invite Justin Elliot of Salon, who on April 22 wrote an article with the presumptuous headline “Trig Trutherism: The Definitive Debunker,” to exam the photographic evidence presented here. And after he examines it, I’d like to know if he still feels 100 percent sure Sarah Palin was in fact pregnant with Trig. If his answer is yes, then I’d like him to explain what he makes of this photograph?

I have a doctorate in mass communications from a top school in that field, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which means I’m a trained researcher. My research has been published in numerous peer-reviewed academic journals. I teach a senior-level college class on research methods. I’m an empiricist. I believe truth can be discovered and verified. And this picture that we have just examined objectively exists, and its truth value can be assessed. Here’s my bottom line from my examination of the photo: I am at least 95 percent confident that Sarah Palin is not seven months pregnant in that photo.

I was also struck by the dismissive nature of Julia O'Malley's use of the term "photoshopped." I remembered thinking "which pictures is she referring to?"  Because none of the really important photographs which demonstrated that Sister Sarah could NOT have been pregnant, were altered in any significant way, EXCEPT that they were occasionally lightened to bring out more detail.

Then it kind of dawned on me that THIS was how people who accepted Palin's version of events were able to completely dismissive the evidence that all of US found so compelling and impossible to ignore.

As a matter of fact the photoshopping accusation was also levied against my post entitled "A Tale of Two Babies by Sarah Palin."

There were some who simply could not comprehend after looking at this picture...

..why the ear deformation is no longer evident  in this picture.

So they automatically assumed that it MUST be the result of some kind of photo manipulation.

However as I carefully illustrated in my post, the picture was taken directly off of (Palin best friend) Kristan Cole's website. The ONLY thing altered was to block out the young lady's face who was holding the child. (And NO that was not one of the Palin kids.)

So personally I am quite interested in learning what Professor Scharlott's expert opinion is on a variety of the iconic photographs which prove, at least to those of use living in the reality based world, that Sarah Palin was NOT pregnant in 2008. And did NOT give birth to a child in April of that year.

And then I would absolutely love to hear a response from Justin Elliot of Salon.com, as well as Julia O'Malley.

Apparently the memories of some reporters are a tricky thing. Especially when it comes to Sarah Palin's last "pregnancy."

I have to assume that all of you are just about as dizzy as I am from all of this new information being offered up by reporters suddenly coming out of the woodwork that they "knew" all along that Palin was pregnant.

First we had ADN reporter Julia O'Malley suddenly coming out with the information that. "Palin also ran all the time at the gym in Juneau. People I know saw her on the treadmill sweating in workout clothes. She had a belly. I repeat: she had a real pregnant belly. Are you going to tell me she was wearing a prosthetic abdomen on the treadmill?"  I am not calling anybody a liar, but I had NEVER heard a report of that kind of observation since I first started asking questions back in the fall of 2008. 

Since that rather interesting revelation Justin Elliot has shaken loose a few other reporters who had pregnancy confirming stories of their own, such as Steven Quinn, Erika Bolstad, and Wesley Loy. (There are other reporters named, but Elliott simply used old articles they wrote back in 2008.  Nothing new to address there.)

Now I have already addressed what I think of Steve Quinn's believability, and some of the other reporters named, but I want to return to Wesley Loy for a moment.

Wesley Loy, as many of you know, originally reported the response of Alaskans to the news the governor was pregnant as follows:

That the pregnancy is so advanced astonished all who heard the news. The governor, a runner who's always been trim, simply doesn't look pregnant.

Even close members of her staff said they only learned this week their boss was expecting.

Obviously it was reports like that one, as well as Michael Carey's casual reference to the "rumor" that Palin faked her pregnancy (And of course the troubling "pregnancy" pictures), that first piqued the interest of those of us who started to question the official birth story.

Now suddenly yesterday Wesley Loy comes out with the revelation, also published in Salon, that he eventually became convinced that Palin WAS pregnant.

The first question to ask is WHY did he wait so long to say anything.  The second is how did Salon get him to go on the record with this previously unreported information when others have failed to do so? (Myself included.) And the third question is did what he reported really take place the way he reported it, and if it did was it actually enough to convince him she that was telling the truth?

Now I am loathe to call anybody a liar. I do not know Mr. Loy, and up until last night had no reason to question his assertion that the story he told about Palin showing him her "(covered) baby bump" really DID assure him that she was pregnant.

But then I had a telephone conversation with Professor Scharlott.

I called him essentially to see how he was  faring with the fact that he now found himself in the eye of a media hurricane. (He is faring well, just so you know.) But then the conversation turned to Wesley Loy.

The Professor said that he had tried in vain to contact Mr. Loy for his research paper, after being directed to do so by reporter Gregg Erickson who was writing for the Alaska Budget Report down in Juneau. The Professor failed to receive a response from Mr. Loy, however he kindly agreed to let me share his conversation with Mr. Erickson here with you.

This is the e-mail that Professor Scharlott sent way back in September of 2008.

Hi,

Is it true the Anchorage Daily News "debunked" the idea that Trig is not Sarah Palin's baby, as I read in a blog? I am mystified why Palin did not produce documentary evidence (e.g. birth certificate) to show her maternity instead of responding to rumors by revealing Bristol's (second?) pregnancy, which in itself does not prove anything if you simply stipulate that she may be less than five months pregnant. Also, I can find no confirmatory statements from attending medical personnel such as her doctor or anyone at the hospital that Sarah is the mother.

I am a journalism professor (so I am highly skeptical by training) and the whole thing sounds fishy. It's almost as if there is an agreement among our colleagues in journalism to let the Palins spread a false version of who Trig's mother is out of a desire to help protect the reputation of Bristol -- which arguably would have been a good thing to do before Palin outed her daughter's current pregnancy and started making political hay out of her "choice" to have a Down syndrome baby.

I am not trying, by the way, to break a news story here -- I stopped writing for newspapers a long time ago. But I am planning to investigate how reporters have reacted to the Palin phenomenon and probably report my findings at an academic conference down the road.

If I am on the wrong track here re Trig's maternity, just let me know. If there is more going on than meets the eye, maybe it would be possible for me to call you for (if need be) an off-the-record chat.

Thanks,
Brad Scharlott
Associate Professor
Northern Kentucky University

Here is Mr. Erickson's response:

Dear Brad:

Anchorage Daily News reporter Wesley Loy investigated the idea that Trig is not Sarah Palin's baby. I've worked with (and against Loy) for years. He's an astute, indefatigable and ruthless reporter.

During this summer's special legislative session Loy, I, and my wife occupied three adjoining offices near the Capitol. We frequently discussed stories we were reporting for Judy's newsletter, my columns, and the stories he was was working. We especially enjoyed Wesley's accounts of his pursuit the "Grandma Governor fakes birth" story.

As far as I know nothing was ever published on "Grandma," but he might have posted something on ADN's "Alaska Politics" blog or elsewhere that I didn't see.

I suggest you address your questions to him a wloy@adn.com.

Good luck,
Gregg Erickson

Now here is my question.

If Wesley Loy had been convinced that Palin WAS in fact Trig's birth mother after his observation of her cloth covered "baby bump," in the spring, why did he not simply tell Erickson about what he had seen, and that in his mind the question had been resolved to his satisfaction? 

And if he HAD told Erickson this, why would Erickson refer to the story as the "Grandma Governor fakes birth" story? 

Not to mention the fact that it sounds like these reporters were discussing stories they were CURRENTLY working on that summer of 2008, NOT stories they had covered in the past.  So why would Loy bring them up unless this was still an ongoing investigation?

I am sorry, but rather than putting this story to rest, Loy's miraculously reconstructed memory actually raises many more questions.  Questions that I personally find very troubling. Very troubling indeed.

Geoffrey Dunn, author of the upcoming book "The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power," has some very interesting facts to add to the controversy over Trig's birth story.



"You're writing about this  too Mr. Dunn?"

 From the Business Insider:

Hoping to disprove the conspiracy theory when I initiated work on my book--and to put the story to bed once and for all--I interviewed several close associates of Palin's, including her friends and political allies. I was anticipating, perhaps even hoping, that they would tell me conclusively that Trig was her child.

I was shocked by the response. One close friend of Palin's--a widely respected woman who had given birth to several children as well and who had close contact with Palin in Juneau up until the time of Trig's birth--told me that "Palin did not look like she was pregnant. Ever. Even when she had the bulging belly, I never felt that the rest of her body, her face especially, looked like she was pregnant." When I asked her point-blank if she was certain the baby was Palin's, she said, "No. I don't know what to believe."

The news of Palin's pregnancy came as a complete surprise to Palin's State Trooper security detail Gary Wheeler, a well-liked, 26-year veteran of the Alaska State Troopers who worked under several administrations in Alaska state government, both Republicans and Democrats. Only two weeks earlier, in late February of 2008, Wheeler had accompanied Palin back to Washington, D.C. for a Republican Governors Association Conference, where she had just met John McCain and his campaign manager Rick Davis, who was to be in charge of the vice-presidential nomination selection process. Wheeler remembers that Palin had changed into jeans upon her arrival in Washington, with no apparent revelation of pregnancy.

Wheeler also said that his wife, Corky, actually made fun of him when the news came out because he was supposed to be a "trained observer." Wheeler simply shakes his head: "I had nary an idea she was packin'."

As Wesley Loy of the Anchorage Daily News reported it at the time, Governor Palin "shocked and awed just about everybody around the Capitol" with her announcement.

This is at seven months.

Oh my friends this is very good stuff indeed!  Do yourself a favor and click that link at the top to read the entire article, you will NOT be sorry!

Is anybody else having as much fun today as I am?

Reporter Laura Novak's third installment of her interview with Professor Scharlott.

Courtesy of Laura Novak's blog:

LN: But you also said that the McCain camp felt the need to respond to the rumor that Mrs. Palin did not give birth to Trig Palin, even though none of the mainstream press in the Lower 48 picked up the story. The campaign did this by saying Bristol Palin was pregnant. You then write: “It seemed strange and needless. A birth certificate would have settled the matter, as would a statement from the hospital or from the doctor who delivered the child.” Had that happened, you and I would likely not be discussing this today. So, what’s your theory on why that didn’t happen?

BS: Why didn’t Sarah Palin offer documentary proof she’s the mother? There would seem to be two possible answers, and they are not mutually exclusive: 1) she’s not the birth mother; and 2) she’s mentally unbalanced.

In a story with so many bizarre twists and turns, THIS one has always really bothered me.

Here was Sarah's chance to grab the brass ring, from what we know about Palin one would think she would do ANYTHING to make the McCain campaign think she was a team player. In other words that she was an asset, NOT a potential time bomb just waiting to explode and embarrass them in front of the American voters.

My working theory is that the McCain campaign had NO idea that Palin pulled off this pregnancy hoax when they tapped her for the VP slot.  So either they found out about it later and helped cover for her, the possibility of which would make this scandal the biggest political story since Watergate, or she simply did not cooperate when they asked for documentation, and for some reason they did not feel comfortable pursuing it.

The latter theory might mean she told them she was unable to produce it, and then gave them some crazy story as to why, or she flatly refused and essentially rolled the dice that they would be too uncomfortable with the idea of pursuing such a personal line of questioning that they would drop it, and simply promote the revelation of her daughter's pregnancy as all the evidence necessary to put the matter to rest.

Personally I have a hard time not believing that some McCain staff members either knew, or had strong suspicions, that Palin was pulling a fast one on the American people.

I have heard rumors that there were McCain staff members who knew, as well as that there are also a number of RNC people who have no doubt Palin faked the pregnancy. Sadly those are still only in the rumor category.

My guess is if Palin DOES decide to run that we will quickly learn if these are just rumors, or if they are important pieces of information carefully protected just for that eventuality.

Every picture tells a story. And then another picture refutes that story. And yet another picture then refutes THAT story. And...well you get the picture.

Earlier the Daily Mail released this heretofore unseen picture...

..to refute that this picture...

taken in Anchorage on March 14, 2008 shows that Palin could NOT have given birth to Trig.

But of course it proves no such thing as demonstrated by this picture..

...which shows a side by side comparison of Palin with an empathy belly pregnancy simulator that both men or women can buy and wear to simulate a real pregnancy.

Which by the way, according to Sarah's appearance, is the option which seems FAR more likely than the idea that Palin was hiding an actual eight month old fetus under that hideous pink and green scarf.



pregnant belly at eight months.



Anybody disagree?

Of course essentially I agree with Joe McGinniss about the power of the photographs:

Hey, none of the pictures of Sarah pregnant-or-not with Trig is the Zapruder film. None of them proves anything. At most, people can use them to support the opinion they already have.

And if that were the sum total of the evidence contained in Professor Scharlott's research paper, I don't think we could expect it to be enough to snag the attention of the mainstream media.  However snag the attention of the mainstream media it did.

Just in the last couple of days renewed interest in this story has turned up in Wonkette, First Post, The Periscope Post, Newser, and The Week just to name a few.  To be fair not all of them accept Professor Scharlott's conclusions.  But they are ALL talking about it, and they all have comments sections filled with readers who are also ALL talking about it.

Which means that if Palin's speech on Saturday in Wisconsin really was an indication that she is still seriously considering a run for the GOP nomination, THIS story will once again explode, and I just don't think that Sister Sarah will be able to simply keep ignoring it once she is under media scrutiny as an actual Republican candidate.

Laura Novak has part two of her interview with Professor Scharlott up on her blog.

Here is a very important part, that I want everybody to read,  where he explains that he was NOT suggesting Trig was Bristol's child, rather than Sarah's:

LN: Brad, I want to begin going through your paper chronologically. You say, in the second sentence no less, that the premise of all of this media coverage/lack of media coverage is that Mrs. Palin “faked the birth of her fifth child, Trig, in 2008 to cover for her daughter, Bristol.” Does this story inevitably have to link to Bristol Palin? Where does that come from? Why go down that path?

BS: There at the start I was merely paraphrasing what the MediaMatters columnist had written – I did not foresee that people would take that as my theory of who Trig’s mother must be – but I understand why it seems that way. So I will revise that part and take Bristol’s name out. Indeed, I will make the point more than once in that paper that I am not pushing Bristol as Trig’s likely mother. I do spend a good deal of time in the paper on Bristol’s delivery of Tripp, but not because I think she must be Trig’s mother, rather because Palin’s people were jerking the press around concerning the exact place and/or date of delivery. That in itself suggests something odd was afoot – but I don’t know what.

(You can read the rest of the interview here.)

As many of you have no doubt observed for yourselves this idea that Trig must belong to either Bristol or Sarah, and since Bristol gave birth to Tripp on December 27 ipso facto Trig MUST be Sarah's child, has been used by a number of media outlets to refute the Professor's contention that there was a cover up.

And, and as I am sure you are also aware, this SAME argument was used back in September of 2008 to kill the story in the first place.  In many ways we are seeing the same scenario play itself out, all over again.

Now this speaks to me directly because I was the first blogger to determine that Bristol was most definitely NOT the person who gave birth on April 18, any more than Sarah Palin was.  For this assertion, which I based on a number of eyewitness accounts of Bristol's appearance around that time and research I hired somebody to do on my behalf, I was attacked by some of the very people who had been major supporters in the beginning of our search for the truth. In the beginning we had all been convinced that Palin was covering for her daughter, and losing that part of the explanation for Sarah's behavior was like pulling teeth for some of us.

However as time went on that fact was reinforced by more interviews, including those with Mercede and her mom,  and more photographs we were finally able to date. 

Now this does NOT mean that Bristol did not have a baby at an earlier time, it just means that on April 18th, 2008, neither she nor Sarah gave birth. 

So who is Trig' mother, and when was he actually born?  THAT my friends is the Holy Grail of this babygate mystery, and I have not yet been able to uncover that fact.

But trust me, I have certainly not given up looking.

Julia O'Malley of the ADN addresses Professor Scharlott's research. Update!

I will give Julia props for at least reading the paper, however like most of the media she immediately dismisses its findings. (But how nice is it to see the story in the Anchorage Daily News again?)

She does provide some new, heretofore unreported "information" for us to mull over.

But, of course, there was no silence spiral. The journalists, including me, who covered Palin at the time believed she was pregnant because she was pregnant. Even before the announcement, she seemed to be putting on weight. She wore baggy jackets and scarves. Before the announcement, she acted nervous when photographers tried to take her picture. Later on, her face filled out. Her fingers swelled. She had a noticeable belly. And it wasn't made out of foam.

Palin also ran all the time at the gym in Juneau. People I know saw her on the treadmill sweating in workout clothes. She had a belly. I repeat: she had a real pregnant belly. Are you going to tell me she was wearing a prosthetic abdomen on the treadmill?

Really?

"Her fingers swelled."  "People I know saw her on the treadmill sweating in workout clothes. She had a belly. I repeat: she had a real pregnant belly."

I have to say that this is new to me.  I have interviewed, and had casual conversations, with dozens of people who saw Palin during her "pregnancy."  Not ONE of them ever said that she appeared pregnant. (Well to be honest there was one potential source that a friend said they were in contact with who claimed to have seen Palin with her shirt up, and her pregnant belly exposed, between March 2008 and Trig's birth.  But when I asked if I could interview them, they quickly disappeared into a puff of smoke.)

So what do I make of Julia's claims?  I am a fan, and absolutely do not believe she would lie, so I want to take her at her word. So does that mean her friends lied to her?  Seems odd if they did, and if so, why?

I have a few faceless "friends" that have had something to say about this as well.  Here are a few who left some very interesting comments about a "tubal ligation" that Palin complained about after the birth of Piper (Scroll down to read what they had to share.) 

I also have a friend in the Valley who has been in contact with somebody, once very close to the Palins, who says unequivocally that the pregnancy was faked.

Then there is the "major news outlet" who revealed that they have pictures proving beyond a shadow of about that Palin was not pregnant. (And yes I have contacted them and told them that "Now is the time to spring their story!")

Not all of these people are anonymous or faceless.  There is also Shailey Tripp, who is the only person I know who saw Palin in some stage of undress and actually felt her stomach, who says that "there was nothing at all" to indicate that she was with child.

I have a few more sources who are not yet ready to have their stories shared, but all in all the cumulative anecdotal evidence is virtually impossible to ignore.  And THAT is without the added proof of the various photographs which show Palin looking much, much too slim to be as pregnant as she claims, or even pregnant at all.

Speaking of pictures the Mail Online has posted this picture as proof that Palin WAS pregnant:

Is anybody convinced by that?

If not, you are not alone. Joe McGinniss was not exactly bowled over by that evidence either.

So here we are on day three of this new frenzy over babygate, and I have to say I am really enjoying seeing people examining the evidence. Many for the very first time. 

I know that there are still those who will never agree that Palin faked the pregnancy, but I am noticing that there are a whole lot who have seen the light, and even more who are at least expressing interest in the possibility that a whole nation was hoodwinked.

For this tired old Trig Truther, that is music to my ears.

And by the way there are STILL no tweets from the Grizzled Mama herself telling us all how foolish we are for talking about this again. Which is kind of interesting in and of itself.

Don't you agree?

Update: By the way another major mystery, besides why Palin did not seem to gain any weight until the last three weeks of her "pregnancy," is the fact that she seems to have lost all of that sudden weight gain even quicker.

Here is the famous picture taken in the Palin kitchen on Levi's birthday, May 3rd, which is only two weeks after Trig's "birth."

Where is the round face everybody is commenting on?  Or the bulky shoulders shown in the ADN photos? Or the fat fingers?  Or the discomfort in bending over, that my wife dealt with for almost two months? None of that appears evident here.

I will put the photographs I have in my collection against anything the ADN or the Daily Mail have any day of the week.  I have every confidence that if this evidence were put in front of a jury, that Palin would be convicted of faking her pregnancy in a heartbeat!

Update 2: Here is Andrew Sullivan's take on this pathetic article:

She also seems to believe that the job of journalists is to adjudicate not just what's fit to print, but also what's fit to report. Based on what her friends say they saw in a gym.

Actually the job of journalists is to seek factual resolution of legitimate empirical questions. This should be easy. Why has it been so insanely hard?

Now THAT is a very good question.  You know, the kind an actual journalist might ask.