Friday, December 16, 2011

Fun with pictures. See Tripp grow. Grow Tripp grow.

(When reading this post and looking at pictures, you may want to increase the size of images on your screen. If you use a Mac, hold down the command key and strike the plus key (+) to increase, use the minus key to make images smaller again (-).  For a PC, you might visit this website for instructions. It's not complicated, I just don't have a PC in front of me to use to describe the process. And by the way, I'm not making any judgements about my readership by linking to the Pennsylvania Dept of Aging. )

This post required my spending time looking at pictures of Levi and Bristol in happier times, and looking at the quick demise of their little family unit. It's sad.  So on a happier note, I want to say right up front: "Good Luck to Track and Britta on your REAL Wedding Day."

Above left is a a picture of Tripp with Levi taken in July 2010. It's my baseline comparison shot for the next several presentations.

Above right is a picture of Levi with newborn Tripp. We are told this was December 27, 2008.

In each side-by-side comparison, I have used the distance from the tip of nose to the bridge of the nose to the to keep the people (except the baby) the same size for comparison. This isn't perfect, but it may be useful.

Above left is a a picture of Tripp with Bristol during an interview with Greta Van Susteren on or around February 16, 2009. On the right is the July 2010 baseline comparison shot.

Here is a triptych (had to use that word) of the same shots.

Here are side by side shots of the same pictures used above, removing the baseline and bringing the babies closer together.

Now, for fun, we add Piper Palin in an undated photo first seen on the Greta interview and we are told this is Tripp.  Looks like Tripp to me. Looks like it's a day or two after he was born and he's lost some weight. That's pretty typical for newborns.

Now I want to introduce all three - Bristol, Levi and Piper. The picture I found is on the New York Times website. They are standing in a line, each approximately same difference from the camera. This was taken when the Palin family welcomed the McCain's on the tarmac prior to the start of Republican National Convention, and Piper would have been three months younger than in the photo above. Though it's likely she did grow some between the two pictures, I'm going to say it would be negligible.

Below I compare Tarmac Bristol with Greta Bristol to get the proportions right.

Now for the fun.  Below are photographed stages of Tripp's life presented in an overlay for your amusement, consideration, and dismay. Have a good look. Take out the ruler.  Think about the position of the baby and the angle of the shot(s). Then tell us what you think of Bristol claiming the baby in her arms February was seven weeks old

When you do this, forget what the Palins claim Tripp weighed at birth. More often than not, the Palins don't tell the truth.  They are smart enough to know that if they wanted to obscure Tripp's earlier birthday, it would make sense to add a couple pounds to his "birth weight" to fit the later-birth story.

Was Tripp  an average size newborn ? He looks tiny to me.  Over the years he's grown at an average rate, though.  At three, he doesn't appear off-the-charts for his age and height.  He isn't heavy. He's average. All I'm saying here is, he started small and grew normally. If we knew nothing of the date of the picture of Bristol holding Tripp in a blue outfit, how many weeks would we guess he was?

Someday I'm going to figure out how the birthdate fits with Trig's birthdate. Until then, it's one of the mysteries.

What do YOU THINK of all this?


carrie said...

Isn't the pic with Tripp for the Greta interview Feb. 2009? Not 2010?

Allison said...

Good catch, Carrie. I'll change that.

Anonymous said...

You're assuming they were at one time sublimely happy. Considering there have always been trust issues due to cheating and whatever else, I sincerely doubt the relationship would have lasted one month of marriage. Remember, Sarah wanted a wedding as soon as possible. (email from July). Wouldn't Bristol have jumped on that, considering she bought Levi a ring to keep him honest?

No, if there's ONE thing I trust from Sadie's mouth, it's the relationship was always rocky and babies do not make those situations better. Levis a doormat/big baby (Sunnys words) and Bristol's a Sarah-minime who looks up to her mother (levi's words from 09)

Kylie said...

If you're still saying Tripp was born earlier, that is helping Sarah with the Trig story.

By this post, it's obviously you don't think he was born later, as I think you're trying to say he looks big for his reported ago. To me, he looks like an infant in the Greta interview.

For the record, I strongly disagree Trig has anything to do with Bristol, other then being her brother.

Livelongandprosper said...

Why does Levi always look unhappy with Bristol, in 08 and 10. He only looked happy in those pics in her book, which kind of contradicts all their fighting during the winter months. I believe him when he said he felt awkward in MN, and that awkwardness looked weird next to her big smiles. I think the summer previously was hard for him. He never wanted to be a father at that age and he was still pissed at whatever happened with Johnny. He also had to actually get a legit job for once, was told to never speak to his sister again, and was dealing with his father walking out that spring.

To me, I think Levi is so lost in life. I think he was the type to woo girls with gifts (however attained) and was desperate for emotional stability. He never could stay in school (principals and friends words), he was a serial cheater (written proof of his exes), He was so far up Bristol ass that I doubt he had his own goals and just liked being led along with someone else's dreams.

I'm glad he has Sunny, someone who admits on facebook that her father was a deadbeat, who also seems to be balanced and mature (and has a good job). I hope he matures and gets a real job soon. He is 21. A job that he earns and will make him happy.

Anonymous said...

I think Levi gets a raw deal. He was trying to do the right things but I think in the long run he realized that Palin family are only out for themselves. His hope is to find a job then ask the courts for shared custody. Then people could have more respect for him. My own son is a cook and was a single father who adores his daughter. He made sure they had custody. She even said he is a great father. She never worried about that. It could be the same for Levi, if he wanted. His son has to be a priority.

conscious at last said...

Actually I think it is the photo of Piper holding the baby that may be helpful. I think Piper looks younger in that photo than she does on the tarmac. The implication would be that if she is, indeed, younger there, then Tripp was born earlier than stated. Are there some other (verified) photos of Piper in 2008 and early 2009 that we can use as markers?

B said...

@Kylie. "If you're still saying Tripp was born earlier, that is helping Sarah with the Trig story."

Allison is trying to figure out the truth, even if it might decrease the chances that Bristol had Trig.

If Bristol had Trig before mid-Feb. 2008, she had time to have a full-term Tripp in Nov. Moreover, Sarah would have lied to the nation about the due date, worth looking into.

B said...

@conscious at last. If the picture of Piper is with a newborn Tripp, it goes against the idea of a July birth. As I recall, those photos have Piper and Willow in winter clothing.

Perhaps as the grifting pipeline empties, someone in or around that family will attempt a final payoff by telling the truth

Dis Gusted said...

I agree that Piper looks much younger holding the infant than she does on the Tarmac.

The baby held by Bristol in the Greta interview appears to be 3 - 4 months old in that position.

The amazing one to change in these photos is Levi. He went from clean cut on the Tarmac to long hair and sideburns with the hospital bracelet photo. Then he's back to clean cut again in the 2010 engagement spread.

The beautiful and feminine baby boy we've come to know as Tripp appears to be about 2.5 years old in the 2010 engagement photo.

Dis Gusted said...

reading my own post - it all makes sense if Tripp (the blond cutie) was born December 2007.

I think he was. I think Bristol had a baby in December 2007 - maybe twins??

the baby picture recently released of a black haired baby on someone's back (Willow or look-alike) and the alleged Tripp on Bristol's back could also be a baby born around the same time.
Does anyone remember the rumors that Bristol had a baby by a native???? not Levi.

one thing for darn sure - if it's Trigger in that photo - than someone dyed his hair coal black.

Until birth certificates are shown for these children....we'll never know. Wouldn't it be great if someone could possible collect the reward???

Ivyfree said...

""If you're still saying Tripp was born earlier, that is helping Sarah with the Trig story."

Allison is trying to figure out the truth, even if it might decrease the chances that Bristol had Trig."

While it would be interesting to know who gave birth to Trig, and I personally believe it was Bristol, we don't really know anything but that Sarah did not give birth to him. That is the salient point.

I think he's Bristol's because of the talk in Wasilla about Bristol being pregnant- her crowd would know the truth- her disappearance from public view, and her pregnant appearance in the October 2007 MTV taping. I am convinced she gave birth in January- which would have enabled her to attend the heart association luncheon in February, and enabled Sarah in the type of lie she likes: misdirection of the truth, when she told McAllister that Bristol wasn't pregnant. After all, she called him out of a clear blue sky to tell him this- why? Because it suddenly occurred to her that she could tell the truth- Bristol wasn't pregnant, because she'd already given birth, and that's the kind of story that makes Sarah feel she's smarter than other people.

There's a lot we can only speculate about. We have to make sure our speculations do not conflict with the one thing we know: Sarah wasn't pregnant with Trig. Aside from that fact, pretty much everything is speculation. And it's so odd: Sarah announced to the world that her teenage daughter was pregnant. Personally, I don't require marriage before sex to uphold morality, but Sarah's standards do, so when she announced Bristol's pregnancy, she was announcing that according to her standards, her daughter was a careless little slut. The whole point of that data was to say, "Bristol's pregnant, so that proves I gave birth to Trig." The fact that so many people accepted this absurdity on its face simply means that her followers are stupid. But given that this was her story, she SHOULD have announced Tripp's birth. Somehow, Tripp's true date of birth is evidence of something.

That said, I think Piper looks younger when she's holding the newborn. And I think Tripp looks about 10-12 weeks old in the Greta Van Susteren picture. He's no newborn in the GVS pic.

Anonymous said...

too bad Piper doesn't have an open mouth in the pictures. She had no top teeth Sept. 2008.

Anonymous said...

"Somehow, Tripp's true date of birth is evidence of something."

An insightful and well argued post by Ivyfree.

It is strange how the real birth date of both children is hard to establish and to align with other evidence.

But on this thread, I would like more commentary on the pictures, and more pictures in general, to make a clear time line. Explain what we are seeing?

Allison said...

Anon@2:40 This is my holiday-delayed explanation. Hope you find it.

What I've done is put together pictures that we can use to compare the newborn Tripp with the Greta VS interview Tripp. The purpose is to ask ourselves if the GVS Tripp's actual age is different than what was stated.

I'm in the camp that believes Tripp was born earlier than December 27, 2008 by about 4 weeks. Some people think he was born a lot earlier - ie up to a year.. Some people think he was born in January 2009. So, the pictures are for comparison and analysis of Tripp's real birthdate.

If you read my October post "Hockey Sticks and Pregnancy Sticks" it will lead you down the path I took to arrive at my earlier-birthdate theory. I relied heavily on Levi's book and then compared other data that has been available for these three years.

Cracklin' Charlie said...

First-time poster. Sorry to comment profusely on such an old thread, but I have been a bit out of the loop over the last few weeks, and I'm trying to get caught up. This post is very interesting...I hope you don't mind if I leave a couple of observations.

I think you have assembled a great set of photos here, as most all of these can be fairly conclusively dated, and we can be reasonably certain of the origin of the photos. If you don't mind I would like to give a totally unscientific assessment of what I see in these photos.

Set one: magazine cover. The child in this picture is at least 2 years old. If the photo was taken in Spring 2010, the child would have been born in Spring 2008. (April 18, 2008?) Other photo: not convinced that this is Tripp...could be.

Set two: Bristol/GVS. This child is huge. His belly is FAT. Average newborns are fairly scrawny. It takes an average baby several months to build up that fat layer. They never show how long he is, he is dressed as an infant, his ears are not ruffled. I think he could be 6-8 months old. At this point, I would like to bring up a photo that you did not use; the one from Bristol's interview with Matt Lauer in April 2009. The child with her (Tripp, no doubt about it) looked one year old. If he looked one year old in spring, 2009, he would have been born in spring, 2008. If he had indeed been 4 months old in that Lauer interview, as Bristol claimed, he should have looked like the child in the GVS interview.

Tryptych/Set three: See above.

Set four: See above

Piper Picture (Not conclusively dated): Ah, very interesting...Piper does indeed look younger that her tarmac self, but not really by much. She has the closed lip smile of a child who has no front teeth, and her hair is styled like the tarmac, only a little shorter. She is holding a newborn child, who does resemble Tripp. If that baby is Tripp, and she is indeed younger here than in the tarmac picture, Tripp MUST have been born BEFORE the RNC! Does anyone have a picture of Piper that can be conclusively dated to Dec 2008 (Tripp's given birth date)so that we could compare her look from the time that they SAY Tripp was born?

Tarmac picture: Again, very interesting...Piper does indeed look older than the photo above. But look at the size of the child that Willow is holding!!!!! 4 MONTHS OLD???? Born prematurely???? No way in h-e-double-toothpicks. That child can not be less than eight months old, and I would guess one year old. This picture was definitely taken in summer of 2008, so the child would have been born in summer 2007. I do not think Bristol was pregnant in this photo. I do think she was postpartum (2 pregnancies) and nursing (possibly 2 infants). And yes, I think the McCain team knew all about it.

Okay, almost done, I promise. I just have a couple of other things I want you to help me examine. Alison, you know the pictures of Levi, in green shirt, holding a newborn? Even though these can't be dated conclusively, I recall seeing two different photos taken at the same time. In one of them, the photographer is taking the shot standing directly in front of Levi, so all that is seen of the baby is his profile. In the other photo, however; the photographer is shooting from more of an over-the-baby's shoulder perspective. From this angle, the baby looks VERY much like Tripp, to me at least. Have you ever noticed this?

I used to think the Levi/green shirt photo showed a younger Levi than the Levi photographed with a young Trig in Sarah's kitchen, but now I think the green shirt Levi shows an older Levi. The longer hair, and the presence of facial hair on Levi in green shirt makes me think Levi is older in green shirt. Could the long hair with blond tips be the hair that was cut off shortly before the picture on the tarmac?

Allison said...

Cracklin' Charlie you've given us a lot to think about here. I'm going to try to get some traffic to this post so we get more people looking at your perspectives and giving you some feedback.

I have a four month old grandson who is now off the charts in height. Not weight, but height. It reminds me that babies come in all sizes; a baby may look much older than he is. That said, your observation about the GVS baby's belly is a good one.

The green T-shirt pics need more discussion. I'm glad you raised the subject. Let's get into that again soon. I need to post the pictures so more people can look at them and comment in one place. So much I want to do, I'd like to quit my job and blog all day.

conscious at last said...

@ latest comments from Cracklin' Charlie 12/29

I am so glad that you noted the size of "Trig" on the tarmac--yup, he sure does look large for a 4 month old.

...and I am also glad that you brought up the age comparison regarding those two photos of Levi. I have always thought that he looked younger in the kitchen photos. Moreover, I am not sure that I believe that the kitchen photos were taken May, 2008. I suspect that they were taken earlier than that. Similarly, I am not sure that the "shower" photos were actually from a baby shower.

Cracklin' Charlie said...

Right on conscious!

I have always thought that shower looks definitely staged. There's something about the way Sarah looks, that makes me think of convention Sarah. I think it is her outfit. I think the "shower" was staged after the RNC, because I think what she was wearing that day is the black suit that she wore when on the cover of People magazine with Todd, the McCains, and Trig.
I want to ask another question about something I thought of yesterday while running errands. Did Frank Bailey say in his book that he say Bristol at the hospital on the day Trig was "born" and she had not given birth that day? Or did he say Bristol was not pregnant?
My reason for asking...why would he make such a definitive statement? How could he be so certain that Bristol had not given birth that day? My thought...he DID see her that day, and she was pregnant! Hence, he could be certain that she had not given birth that day.