UPDATE August 8, 2011:
We now purchased the rights to the most important of the newly discovered pictures from March 26, 2008, and are allowed to use it in blog posts until the end of November 2012 (we wanted to have the rights for usage until the end of the presidential election).
Here it is in its full glory (photo credit: Brian Wallace / Polaris):
The investigation into “Babygate”, Sarah Palin’s faked pregnancy, will soon go into it’s fourth year, and it looks very much that it will be the final year, despite the insistence of large parts of the media that “Babygate” is nothing more than an ugly conspiracy theory.
The opinion that the “Trig Truthers” are simply conspiracy theorists was aggressively put forward in large parts the media this year after the publication of Prof. Brad Scharlott’s research paper
, for example by Jason Linkins from Huffington Post
(“Trig Trutherism, like Birtherism, and also classic 9/11 Trutherism, are different offshoots of the same conspiratorial tradition”
), Justin Elliott from Salon
(“Sarah Palin is, indeed, Trig’s mother and there is no reason to suspect any kind of a coverup”
), Julia O’Malley from the Anchorage Daily News – here
(“She had a belly. I repeat: she had a real pregnant belly”
) and Megan Carpentier from Raw Story
(“Yes, Palin’s most vociferous opponents want to look into her vagina – with a guide, of course, because it’s all mysterious and scary”
). We posted extensive replies to these article, please click on the links provided above.
There is more – other journalists, for example Dave Weigel in Slate
(“A serious conspiracy theory should seem less like a ‘General Hospital’ subplot”
), Jonathan Chait in The New Republic
(“The responsibility to put the controversy to rest lies with elites”
) and Joe Coscarelli in Village Voice
(“But nevermind that the dates don’t add up, the Trig birthers insisted — the baby could belong to a third party! (He doesn’t.
)” slammed the “Trig Truthers” as well.
So are we nuts? Have we always been nuts? Can’t we cope with the outstanding research skills of the “elites?”
Kathleen and I were on holiday over the weekend, we only returned tonight. Prof. Brad Scharlott alerted us already on Sunday about the new pictures which were discovered on a photo agency website, taken of Sarah Palin by Juneau Empire photographer Brian Wallace on March 26, 2008,
but unfortuntately we couldn’t react immediately. So with a little delay, here is our report regarding these new developments. We will also purchase the most important of these new pictures so that we can display them here on Politicalgates in it’s full glory as well, but we couldn’t do that today either as it was too late. The most important one of these new pictures can be viewed for example on Laura Novak’s blog, who also posted some excellent commentary.
The discovery of the pictures took place in public after a commenter left a link to the photo agency website on “The Immoral Minority” blog, which was then followed by posts on “The Immoral Minority”
and on Laura Novak’s blog.
This was the original “nail in the coffin” picture from March 26, 2008 (click to enlarge), which was posted on flickr by the user “surfdaf”:
Here is a screenshot of Sarah Palin’s official diary from that day, which was obtained through a FOIA request (click to enlarge):
In addition, here is a screenshot from a news report about this event in the “Juneau Empire” – already including a picture which was taken by Brian Wallace:
The picture links to this short story – written by Brian Wallace, whose additional pictures from this event now appeared on the agency website virtually “out of the blue”:
The “nail in the coffin” picture with Palin’s flat belly was upload to flickr on April 15, 2008, three days before Trig was officially born, by the user “surfdaf”. It’s not the only picture she uploaded from this event. There were several others as well.
Here are the original screenshots from flickr:
The problem with the “nail in the coffin” picture from 26 March, 2008, the fateful day when Sarah Palin forgot to wear her magical scarf, was always the same: A baby weighing six pounds is simply not visible!
Unless one desires to start hallucinating, it’s a simple fact that the photo doesn’t show a woman who will give birth to a baby weighing six pounds two ounces just three weeks later. Sarah Palin is in real life a small, slender woman and looked huge in her first pregnancy, as Andrew Sullivan also pointed out on December 5, 2008. The large baby which was presented on April 18, 2008 is not there, and this is not a conspiracy theory, but just a simple fact (see the original story by Alaska news channel KTUU with the pictures of Trig from April 18, 2008).
It will probably take a long time yet to convince the “doubters” in the media, and the task has been made even more difficult as quite a large number of news outlets would have to admit that they made a serious mistake by branding us “conspiracy theorists.” Nobody likes to admit mistakes, after all.
But it is inevitable in my opinion that “Babygate” will be revealed in the end. As I said several times before, we have known from reliable sources for a long time now that the pregnancy was faked. Apparently this is too much for many people to believe, or it is simply politically inconvenient – for Republicans and Democrats alike. However, I do believe that it is just a matter of time until more journalists will openly voice their doubts, in light of the overwhelming evidence that there is something seriously wrong with Sarah Palin’s pregnancy.
Sarah Palin is just about to jump into the Presidential race, most likely with an announcement in Iowa on September 3rd. I suspect that we will see more attempts to suppress the issue – but this won’t be successful, as the facts are not in favour of Sarah Palin.
Our reader lidia17 created a clip with the new photos
– showing that this new evidence is simply impossible to ignore. We all have to keep the pressure up, we cannot give up, the job isn’t done yet. Sarah Palin still gets away with her lies and deceptions, and she will be unleashed on America with full force very soon.
From the video clip – an excellent comparison by lidia17 to the “Gusty-picture”, the picture from April 13, 2008, which mysteriously appeared on August 31, 2008 on an anonymous flickr-account (an account which has been deleted already in spring 2010). This picture still constitutes the main proof for Sarah Palin’s pregnancy
– but a careful comparison to the new pictures from March 26, 2008 casts serious doubts, because the shape of Palin’s body doesn’t match (click to enlarge):
A member of our team spoke to the photographer Brian Wallace on the phone, and he said that it was not him who added the descriptions under the photos on the photo agency website
which referred to the pregnancy controversy. He just gave the date and location of where the pictures were taken. So it remains a mystery for now who added the descriptions under the photos, and why they were suddenly discovered. We hope to have more information for you soon.
“Babygate” has been covered in more detail in previous posts. You can find all this information here:
Read all posts at Politicalgates about Sarah Palin’s faked pregnancy with Trig – CLICK HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE AND HERE.
Download the research paper regarding Sarah Palin’s faked pregnancy and the role of the media, written by Brad Scharlott, Associate Professor for Journalism at Northern Kentucky University – CLICK HERE.
Read the old post at Palingates about the faked pregnancy with the pictures still intact in hardcopy HERE.
Read the old posts at Palingates online HERE (useful also for watching the video clips which were published with the posts).
In addition, please don’t hesitate to watch the excellent video-documentaries about “babygate” which our reader Lidia17 created – HERE, HERE and HERE.
We break the “Spiral of Silence” – Read the details about the “biggest hoax in American political history!”