Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Flu Shot for Sarah - A Small Puzzle Piece

Later this week I will compile a list of areas that need work in order to complete the puzzle, meanwhile I'm passing around a little thing I found today that I haven't seen  before. Somewhere, this will fit into the picture we are putting together of Sarah’s phony claim to have been carrying a baby – Trig – in November, 2007.  The little item comes from Sarah's November 2007 email. 

Was Sarah wrestling with the decision about getting a flu shot because she was pregnant? Or was it,  as it appears at face-value, strictly politics? I'm thinking that if Sarah was actually pregnant, her first consideration would have been toward her baby. The politics of a flu shot are miniscule compared with having a healthy pregnancy and delivering a healthy baby.

I couldn’t find any coverage about whether she had one or not but the affects of the shot on the fetus cannot be downplayed. At the time these emails were exchanged, Sarah, if she had actually been pregnant, would have been in that period between knowing she was “with child” and finding out the baby had an extra chromosome. Sarah claims in “Going Rogue” and many speeches since, that she found out about Trig’s Down Syndrome in early December, 2007.

This is a tiny puzzle piece, and to properly place it, we need to know, what does the medical community say about flu shots and pregnancy?  According to the Mayo Clinic’s website, “the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a flu shot for anyone who’s pregnant during the flu season – typically November through January or even later.” (Isn’t the Internet amazing? I had that information in under 60 seconds. Sarah, if actually pregnant at that time, and if she cared, could have had it that quickly, too.)

The website offers many good reasons to back up the advice. Here they are, one at a time:

Pregnancy puts extra stress on your heart and lungs.  Note:  Sarah’s heart was no twenty-something heart.  Even though she might present the argument that running kept her heart strong, this supposedly pregnant woman had already put some miles between herself and her fortieth birthday.

Pregnancy can also affect your immune system. [extra stress on heart and lungs increases] the risk, not only of getting the flu but of developing serious complications of the flu, such as pneumonia and respiratory distress.

In turn, flu complications increase the risk of…premature labor, preterm birth and other pregnancy complications. Note: We learned in “Going Rogue” that not all Sarah’s pregnancies were simple and successful. She had experienced pregnancy complications before.

A flu shot during pregnancy can help protect your baby after birth… the antibodies you develop will…help protect your baby from the flu.” (PLEASE  NOTE, the Mayo Clinic makes a point to differentiate between a shot (recommended) and a nasal dose which is not good for pregnant women to take).

Lest you think Sarah, as an Alaskan, has some built-up immunity to the flu, below is a chart published by the very agency that the Governor was supporting by signing the proclamation in 2007. According to a government report filed while Sarah Palin was in office,  the State of Alaska influenza is a leading cause of death in their state.

So, for the first time in her life, one year into her governorship,Sarah might get immunized against the flu. Hmmm. Was she listening to the staff who warned her she would need a good excuse not to get the shot because they were sure the question would be asked?  Or was it because it’s recommended that pregnant women get the shot. Pregnancy or politics? Where does this piece fit into our puzzle?

Are we forcing it to fit where we want it if we say this is one for the Trig Truthers? Does it really suggest Sarah was not pregnant?  It could be argued from either side, and I shall. But in the end, I think there’s more weight on one side than the other.

Sarah says she never got a flu shot before and never got the flu. No reason to doubt that, other than she lies about everything. But, that’s what she said, so let’s examine the wisdom of that rationale, taking it at face value. Does a negative outcome (not getting the flu) guarantee continued negative outcomes?  Of course not. That makes no more sense than a woman getting a negative pregnancy test result after unprotected sex assuming she had some immunity against getting pregnant. (Willow, read that again. You need to  understand that concept.)

It wasn’t a good argument by the governor, so perhaps it was a lie. Maybe, just maybe, she was using this lame excuse to hide some real reason for not rolling up her sleeve and taking one for All Alaskans. Maybe Sarah doesn’t like shots. Lots of people don’t like shots. Would we know?  Ah, yes, we do know. Sarah was getting shots into her belly that winter to dissolve fat. Even if Sarah had a strong aversion to injection, she could screw up her courage to get vanity shots. In the stomach, no less. Lipodissolve shots in the abdomen are a clue in themselves; suffice it to say that if she had them, she wouldn’t have some intense phobia causing her to reject a flu shot. Especially one  recommended as part of pre-natal care.

I’m going to make a decision on which pile of picture pieces this should go with – Sarah wasn’t pregnant.  I say this not only because I'm a Trig Truther, but because it makes sense. If she had been carrying a child, she would have either said, “I had a flu shot this year,” because she would have already done that on the advise of her doctor, or, if she wasn't yet under a doctor's care,  she would have done the same internet search I did, and discovered that she really needed to get one. In the latter case, her second email would more likely have said “Sign me up!”

She didn’t do either one, and I’m saying she didn’t act like a pregnant pro-life woman doing all she could to protect the unborn fetus within.


Ivyfree said...

There's also the fact that there's a lot of suspicion out there about flu vaccines, a lot of conspiritorial nonsense about where they come from and whether they do any good. The fact that the CDC recommends them is reason enough for idiots to oppose them. Sarah is AIP and a fundamentally ignorant person. Politically she would be opposed to flu shots. (whereas lipo-dissolving shots, being unproven and not necessarily safe, would appeal to her vanity and willingness to spend on herself.)

It would have been easy for Sarah to lie and say she'd had one, and there's no way to disprove it if she had. But Sarah is a liar. When she says "let me think about it" (Sarah, THINKING?) it means to me that she's already decided but she doesn't want to tell anyone. (Because she's conspiritorial and tells different things to different people.)

Actually, Sarah, as governor, was the kind of person who should have a flu shot. She met lots of people and therefore had a greater chance of contracting the flu from somebody and a greater ability to spread it if she had it herself.
Plus, yes, being pregnant, her doctor would have automatically wanted to give it to her and she would have had to argue with her, and that would have given her the "I've already had it" statement that she wouldn't give.

Common sense. Photo from March 14. She wasn't pregnant, and I doubt she ever got the flu shot.

Anonymous said...

I don't think this is a worthwhile avenue. She may have never gotten a flu shot in her life and then since she was governor and was kinda expected to get one as an example setter, there are these emails. Sarah being pregnant or not pregnant probably didn;t play into her decision. She didn;t think too much about how it would look good for a pregnant woman to get the flu shot, to aide her hoax...just as she didn't think too much about the fact that CBJ was unqualified to be her OB or that MatSu would not ever deliver a high risk pregnancy. Sarah doesn't THINK intelligently.But, she can do what she wants until the courts tell her she can't.

Anonymous said...

Also, agree with Ivyfree as an AIP Sarah probably was against flu shots, especially mandated flu shots.

Anonymous said...

The most curious thing to me is WHY THE REDACTION? If she was just anti-shots, what was there to REDACT? How much you want to bet that under that REDACTION we'd learn some VERY INTERESTING things about who actually was pregnant?


Anonymous said...

I think the redaction says that she should 1) "lie and say you already got a flu shot" and thus she encourages vaccination without having to get a shot at the event.

Ivyfree said...

Another odd thing is that a 44 year old woman has to stop and think about what her position should be about a flu shot- which is an issue that comes up annually. Has she never considered it before? Did she not ensure that her kids got their shot?

Jenz42 said...

I would put this in the "doesn't really tell us anything" category because I can't imagine that she was thinking about her own fake pregnancy that far ahead. She seemed to play fast and loose with the coverup later, so I don't think she would have the wherewithal to think this far ahead on this issue. She didn't want a shot, she wasn't going to get one, and no one could make her get one. I WISH it told us something, but at this point I feel so dejected about the ignored mountains of evidence that I feel like the only thing that will blow this open is a tell-all by one of the principals or an original birth certificate.

B said...

The redaction is curious. But if it said she should just say she already got one, then the lie would be detectable in context, and would have been redacted as personal.

If Sarah had AIP objections, she wouldn't have done the event. Whether she got one or not, she was going to be encouraging Alaskans to get them. As an AIP'er, she would have said, "See if Sean can do this one."

I never had a flu shot when pregnant and never had a doctor suggest I get one then. In fact, I would have thought it was better not to. But I remember the people who were paralyzed by the swine flu vaccine pushed by Pres. Ford.

I am inclined to think Sarah's reluctance, and her staff knowing she would be reluctant, had nothing to do with her being pregnant or planning to pretend she was. Maybe Ms. Vanity doesn't like to bare her upper arms or panics over injections or pain. But you are right that it is an interesting puzzle piece, Allison.

Anonymous said...

I don't really understand this post's purpose. I don'y understand why you reference Willow. If it's fine for pg women to get flu shots, and she was thinking about it, why is this a post? How does it prove she wasn't pregnant? We already have slight evidence that the medical info Blade released could have been forged as Sarah had been emailing ALL day the day that was written.

Sorry to be difficult but I don't see your point or your logic.

Thinking... said...

Well, considering we've seen a lot of her and she's never seemed remotely sick, Im not going to argue with her on that.

I will say that I rarely get sick (maybe a little cold once a year) and refuse to get flu shots, mainly for that reason.

Because adoption takes time to process and baby acquisition is complicated, her search for a DS baby no doubt probably began around this time if not a month earlier or so. Think. Heather emails in Oct 07 about SN parenting. She does have a planned answer for when she discovered certain things about the "pregnancy". I think a backstory was carefully crafted by herself and maybe Todd. Then, when the children were notified, that were probably schooled on the story, after they calmed down and accepted the secrecy.

What maybe happened:
-Sarah reads countless emails and wellwishes on her possible being VP nominee dating back to 2007.
-The specific email regarding a huge sect of people, special needs parents. Sarah's lightbulb goes off
-Sarah goes on baby search while meeting with DC folks. Jurys out on whether Todd was in the loop at this point
-March 1st, Todd, Willow and Piper fly to juneau (email)
-March 2-3 - Sarah in LA
-March 3 - Sarah tells inner staffers in Anch she's pregnant (these same staffers are the ones who see her children/family regularly
-March 4 - talks about being on long layover, but we assume she returns to Juneau today, mentioning milk runs
-March 5 - McCain wins right?
-March 6- Announcement - all the kids were upset, as Sarah had denied a pregnancy not too long before said announcement
-Trig born April 18
-May - all kids seem to be content; one was smiling in Govs office with baby.

Honestly, we really have no hard info on what happened. We have Sarah's correspondence between OCS for a multitude of things. We have them all attending the wedding in HA and running into Erica's son. We have almost all the family attending the xmas open house which is mid Dec. We have Bristol and Lauden being spotted in a mall just before xmas. We have an annoyed Sarah over the drama Tracks army grad caused her (Lyda). One of Todd's friends and a close friend of the family writes beneath a Nome/irondog picture "Todd thinking of names for his new son/daughter" This could have been written after her announcement but it's telling that it's from a close friend of the whole family and he/they think nothing of Trig's origins.

There really arent many cues about shit. People are right. .......She covered himself well, though she was too naive about her scarf usage.

People don't speak up because 1. personal business 2. don't know where he came from 3. don't know how to broach the topic from a sane standpoint 4. dont care.

And really, does this matter? In everything we face in the world, does THIS matter? This won't feed OUR families. this won't put OUR kids through school. This won't end highend corruption. People will continue to be biased and fail to report/see truth about their own party. While people may not fake pregnancies, I'm sure there are adoptive parents who raise their adoptees as their own blood relations.

Just my honest opinion.

Anonymous said...

Do we know how accurate Blade's info is? Why did Sarah still look hefty all spring and summer? Her thighs and midsection wasn't slim. People do fake that info all the time. Look at the people who faked school grades and transcripts, INCLUDING for Sarah.

Too bad that info can never be discussed publicly and legitimately.

Anonymous said...

She's obviously got smarts as she pulled off a fake pregnancy and adoption of a baby without even her closest staff members knowing. That takes a type of genius.

Frank B saw her constantly, and while he's a man and was still in the loop, he wholeheartedly believes Trig is hers.

Sidenote: I'm cautious about believing the lipo stories. She definitely had a belly and fat on her. People have been known to lie (tubal stories that mysteriously were "reported" at the same time and never again)

There's no way to distinguish between fact and fiction with Sarah Palin. Thank you dishonest Alaskans for that. Bleh.

Allison said...

Thinking. - Can you link us to this "seen at the mall" in December info? Can you site a source? Or send me the screenshot off the Social network page? The date of that outing is one small piece I haven't seen. I think we should pass that one around and let others have a look. No hoarding the pieces! Everyone needs to share. Thanks in advance.

Allison said...

Anon@2:15. We don't really know if Blade got her documents from Shailey Tripp but its been assumed. The timing fits too. It was when Shaily was getting her information out through various bloggers , she worked with four that I can recall off the top of my head, not including Blade. I always wondered if it was some other worker who took the opportunity to do it without being suspected because we all assume it was Shay.

B said...

We have to address the flu shot issue, as Allison has done, because on its face the emails comport with Sarah being pregnant that fall. Her top aides know about it and are doubtful she wants to get the shot, having not researched that it is actually recommended for pregnant women. The redacted part refers in some way to her pregnancy.

Of course that wouldn't be consistent with Sarah's story that only she, Todd, and her doctor knew by December, so if Sarah is telling the truth (and if pigs fly), the aides didn't know and the redaction refers to something other than pregnancy anyway.

Ivyfree said...

"She's obviously got smarts as she pulled off a fake pregnancy and adoption of a baby without even her closest staff members knowing. That takes a type of genius."

Actually, since she surrounded herself with yes-men and sycophants, and avoided the press ("where's Sarah?"), it didn't take genius. And there's actually no evidence that her staff members were unaware that she was lying. Just because they don't talk about the obvious lies of a malicious, vindictive, hostile woman doesn't mean they're unaware that they are lies. It just means they're smart enough to protect themselves.

Ivyfree said...

"And really, does this matter? In everything we face in the world, does THIS matter? This won't feed OUR families. this won't put OUR kids through school. This won't end highend corruption."

Actually, I think it matters that a major political party nominated somebody crazy for the vice-presidency.

Anonymous said...

@Ivyfree, that post is from our resident troll. Did everyone see this new study? Low IQ & conservative beliefs linked to racism:

Allison said...

Thanks for a good discussion here, everyone. It is interesting that something got redacted because the GPve herself brought up her history and that was personal and did not get redacted. If it says "just lie and say you got one " why redact? That's not personal or not any more personal than the stuff left in. Encouraging lying is really nothing in this case. I doubt the people cutting things would even give it a thought. So maybe B is right and Sarah was peddling the tall tale as far back as November. Is it possible a tiny preterm Trig could already have been in an ICU in late November ? To answer my own question, yes it is. I know someone who delivered in November and was due in mid march. Twins both survived. They were smaller than Triggy Bear when they came home in April. Let's kick that idea around.

B said...

Sarah telling her aides she was pg would explain why they thought the flu shot was an issue. It would probably mean she concocted the hoax while Bristol was pregnant, but did not tell Bristol what she planned.

It would go along with what MeAgain said about Todd being PO'ed that Sarah wouldn't wear the padding that winter as she was supposed to. That never fit with the idea that Sarah didn't think this up till McCain won.

But if she "showed" that winter she would have had to tell Bristol she was taking her baby from her. Instead Bristol figured it out when Mommy Dearest announced her pregnancy to the press, causing Bristol to deliberately get pregnant again.

Those aides had to see she wasn't really pregnant as time went by. Maybe she told them she was going to pretend to be pregnant to cover for Bristol. And they thought someone might later question the flu shot when they heard the Gov was pregnant.

I don't know what to think. I just know she wasn't pregnant.

Cracklin' Charlie said...

Sorry I'm late, but I have been really busy.

I have looked at the emails you included and I would like to make some observations. In the email from Janice, the language Janice uses makes it seem that she already knows that Sarah is not planning to receive a flu shot. Janice wants a reason why she's declining the flu shot so that she can relate Sarah's reason to someone (the media?) who is sure to ask. Was the fact that she wasn't going to get a flu shot going to be part of the media release? Does anyone know if her reason was part of the eventual press release? Are there any emails where she ever answers Janice's question about what to tell the media about the flu shot? Do we know if she took the shot?

And to address the redacted sentence just seems odd that they would redact this part of a sentence. This would seem like a very unremarkable email about scheduling, so why redact? Maybe because it looks like Kris and Janice were telling the governor what to say or do, maybe it was what Kris and Janice had discussed.

However; when I look at the next page of emails, something does look very odd. If you read the emails in the order they are arranged here, which is in date/time order, they don't make sense. There is discussion of something about the Valley, that does not relate to the email immediately prior. But if you switch the text of email #2 and email #3, it does make sense. When the text is switched, Sarah's response to Janice is in correct order, with the reference to Chuck's group, and with a question about the Valley clinic. Does this mean anything?

The last email (date/time wise here) is also sent at 1:38 am! She had until Friday to let Janice know...was it so important that she had to send this at almost 2 am? And she asks Janice for a minute to decide? At 2 am she probably didn't need to ask for a minute to decide, unless Janice was still working at 2 am. Something about that 2 am email does not read like a 2 am email, if you know what I mean.

If you could accept that the text of the emails had been switched to read in proper order, the "never mind" email asks to AGAIN, give her a second to decide. That would mean she has asked for time before, as she did in the Chuck's class email. It seems that something has been switched around here, intentionally or otherwise. Could a 1:38 am email have had it's text removed, and the text from a later email have been inserted under the date stamp? Anyone care to weigh in?


I think that the child known as Trig had already been born in Nov 07, and that Bristol was already pregnant with her second child at that point. Sarah had lots to "dill" with.

I have seen you having an interesting discussion at Brad's place, and since I can't comment there, I hope you and Allison don't mind if I bring it over here. I just wanted to ask...doesn't it seem odd that the State of Alaska didn't seem to have Trig's birth certificate so long after his birth. It just seems to me that with all the rules and regulations that hospitals have to follow, that they would always be the ones to make the state aware of the birth of a child. I would think that the days of parents or anyone else providing this information are long gone. I understand that the emails concerned insurance coverage, but in this case the insured was an governor of the state where the birth was registered. Sounds like the information they needed would have been a few mouse clicks away. I just thought you might not mind discussing that here.

B said...


I think you can create a non-revealing gmail account and use it to sign into the Google blog page and comment at Brad's. Or you can comment here and ask Allison or us to copy it at Brad's.

Why do you think Trig was born in Nov.? To me, the pictures of Bristol with Sadie in the prom dress don't look like Bristol is 6 months along, and the "Christmas" pictures in September 07 don't look like Bristol is two months away from a baby who could survive. If Bristol had Tripp the summer of 08, I think Sarah got Trig from somewhere else.

@Allison. You are working on a list of unresolved issues/facts. The flu shot discussion has reminded me of my own list I've meant to make for months or years: What facts actually make sense only if Sarah gave birth to Trig? This list is still empty.

Gusty photos are not on that list b/c Sarah needed to look pregnant and could be wearing the empathy belly. Insurance missing the b/c is not one. It is most consistent with Sarah not giving birth to Trig, with things not going as described on April 18.

However, the flu shot discussion was a possible candidate: there are other explanations, but would they be redacted? Was this really worth a 2 am "give me a minute" correspondence?

Along the same lines, I want a list of evidence that can be explained no way other than Sarah just wasn't pregnant with Trig. My beloved March 14 ADN (sourced, dated) photo of flat-bellied Sarah and the Parnells is on that list in my mind.

I focus on these two things in making my personal argument:

How can I counter the evidence that seems to have no reasonable explanation other than Sarah was pregnant when she said she was? (Is there any?)

And what evidence do I have that the opposition cannot counter with a reasonable explanation? (3/14 photo?)

Cracklin' Charlie said...

Thanks for your response. I will briefly explain here when I think Trig and Tripp were born, and the "evidence" that I base my idea on. I welcome any analysis, and also any attempts to discredit my hypothesis.

I think that Bristol is the biological mother of both boys. I think Trig was born somewhere near August, 2007. The reason...the baby introduced at the RNC in August 2008 looked about one year old at the convention. Ergo, he must have been born somewhere near August 2007.

I think that Tripp was born on or shortly before April 18, 2008. The reason...when Bristol introduced Tripp on the Today show in an interview with Matt Lauer in April of 2009, he looked about one year old. Ergo, he must have been born somewhere near April of 2008.

I use these two examples as my evidence for the simple fact that these appearances are date-certain, and can not be disputed time-wise. I have lots of other reasons that lead me to believe the above, but most of them would admittedly be called speculation, as there has been so much fakery in this matter, that I use the examples about the boys because they can be conclusively verified date-wise.

And just to throw in a little speculation, I think Bristol became pregnant with Trig about the time (Nov, 2006) that Sarah was elected governor of Alaska. She delivered the child, (Trig) sometime in summer of 2007, and soon found herself pregnant again. Tripp followed his big brother and arrived in Spring of 2008. In my hypothesis, the date of Trig's birth could be moved forward in time by even a couple of months, but I think Tripp had to have arrived on April 18, 2008 or shortly before, but not after. The reason I prefer not to place Tripp's birth any later than April, 2008 is because I think his unexpected (early) delivery necessitated Sarah's wild ride. I also feel that if Bristol had not been delivering her second child, none of this (wild ride and baby hoax) would have been necessary, at all. Sarah could have easily explained that her daughter had made a mistake, and would marry the father, finish school, and raise the child. This was the story they were using at the RNC, so it must have been acceptable. But to have to explain why her 17 year old (maybe) daughter had 2 children would, I think, prove much more problematic.

B said...

@CC. Not much time here, but my immediate thoughts are how you explain some pictures.

There is a photo of Bristol having fun at a lake dated by Patrick (?) in June of 2007 where she is totally flat-bellied. That was part of how people decided the Sept 2007 pictures showed a pregnant Bristol.

If Trig were born in May 2007, Her Juneau classmates would have to have noticed by the time she left in March or May (two different stories). And I think the basketball team picture of her was from early 2007 and she looks normal.

Also we have Bristol's facebook (?) message to Johnny in May 2007 saying her mom asked if she were pregnant. Not even Sarah is oblivious enough not to notice 7-9 months along.

As for Tripp, there is the picture from Go Red luncheon in mid-Feb. 2008 that does not show Bristol looking pregnant. Nor does her late-April photo with Sadie. If she had Tripp in between, in Mar. or Apr., her belly would have to have been noticeable at the luncheon.

Also, "Misty" corresponded with Audrey and said Bristol was not pregnant in Anchorage when she saw her in early (Feb.?) 2008, for what that is worth. Audrey did believe her to be truthful, however.

I think most non-pregnant photos and sightings of Bristol support Trig born between Nov. 2007 & Feb. 2008, and Tripp born between July 2008 (before the fair photos) & Jan. 2009.

Allison said...

CC and B - interesting stuff. B and I see these things the same way. I'm going to lead readers back here to from the newer post.

Cracklin' Charlie said...


I see what you mean about all the photos of Bristol, but what about my two main photos of "evidence"...that the boys looked one year old when they were supposed to be just 4 months old? There is no way the child on Bristol's lap in the Matt L. interview is only 4 months old. Just no way.

I won't address all your points about the photos of Bristol, at least not yet, but I don't think we can rely on the dating of several of those photographs. I think if anyone (McCain camp) wanted to clean up this hoax for public viewing, the first place they would start would be to control the images, and stories about Bristol.

But just for a couple of them...Bristol looks about 14 years old in that basketball picture. She looks much younger than she did at her mother's inauguration. I don't believe that picture was taken in early 2007. The pictures from the Go Red luncheon are not conclusive for me. I can't tell if she looks pregnant or not. And I'm not sure I would trust any stories told by Bristol's friends. The waters here are very murky.

To me, about the only thing here that is not murky is the fact that in conclusively dated photos, the boys look much older than their given age. How much older? We can only speculate. I'll be back when my work gets done.

B said...

@Cracklin. Your observations are a reason for "two babies" theories for Trig and Tripp. Not the Ruffles theories, but the idea that a new, older Trig appeared at the RNC and a borrowed, bigger Tripp appeared on Today.

The June 07 photo was from Bristol's facebook, I think. Pretty sure the basketball picture is from Juneau and Bristol started school there in Jan 07 after her mom was sworn in in Dec 06. I agree lots is murky.

Your theory requires misdated photos; others' theories require borrowed and swapped out babies. I don't know the truth. But I also think dating Bristol's unmarried pregnancies is not essential to proving Sarah's fake pregnancy.

Anonymous said...

I'm new here.

How exactly were the redactions done?
Not who but how.

Sometimes the missing info is exactly the same length as the box that hides it. If the redactors are smart they have made the redactions in a way that disguises the length of the redaction.

I haven't seen this discussed about the Palin emails.

I bet if you surveyed Sarah's inner circle a majority would tell you all about the people who had gotten the flu from a flu shot.

We'll know for sure if one of the kids comes down with pertussis or another preventable childhood disease.

Cracklin' Charlie said...

I don't understand why my observations require that there be two babies. I think there is only one Trig, and only one Tripp. I think the Trig onstage at the RNC is the Trig we see today. And the same goes for Tripp. The boys are just older than claimed.

I don't think my scenario requires any mis-dated photos, as the only ones I trust are the ones that can be dated. The fact that there ARE mis-dated photos, to me, only shows that someone tried to hide the truth about where Trig and Tripp came from.

If Bristol became pregnant in Dec. 2006, she could have had a basketball picture made in January 2007, and have been only a few weeks pregnant. That's not such a stretch. And while I agree that establishing the origins of Trig and Tripp are not essential to uncovering the hoax, a tiny clue could prove the basis of unraveling this whole sordid mess.

Anon 4:07, welcome to the rabbit whole. Thanks for bringing up the redactions. I have really looked at very few of these emails, but I find it very interesting that in just the three that Alison has included, there seems to be an inconsistency in the way the three emails are dated. I am not so good with technical stuff, but was wondering if it is possible that the redactors could take an email, remove the text, and replace the removed text with other text, leaving the heading with the date intact. It looks, to me, that that could have happened with the 1:38 Nov. 21 email included here.

I saw that you moved my comment over to Brad's place. I am going to get my IT dept. (my daughter) to help me figure out how to post over there, as soon as I can pin her down. But, just to let you know...Cracklin' Charlie is a girl, baby! Thanks for your help!

B said...

@CC. Just typed out a response and apparently lost it. Sigh.

I wasn't saying your theory requires baby swaps, just that some people explain the older babies that way. I think your theory does require that some photos of Bristol are misdated. But so many?

Wherever and whenever for those babies, Sarah wasn't pregnant.

Allison said...

My apologies to Cracklin' Charlie! Shows I have a gender bias toward names, which is very wrong of me considering some names from my family :)

As for ages and sizes of babies, it's apples and oranges to compare different kids. I saw a kid in December that was the size of my not quite 4 month old grandson. Now, I know my grandson is long and his head is large (he's going to be brilliant :)) But, still, I was surprised when I asked how old this other kid was. Eleven months! For all intents and purposes, that was a one year old boy looking like he was the age of my grandson. So the size of Tripp on Bristol's lap with Matt L ? Well, he looks like my 12-month clothing size wearing little grandson who, btw, is long and lanky. He just looks older than he is because he's off the charts in size.

Now that I've argued against Tripp being older, I have to say, I still think he was at least one month older. I think he was 5 months, not four. They kept him out of sight during those first weeks and months when you can see rapid development like holding up the head. By four, five, or six months, and knocked out, it's really difficult to tell how old he is.

Cracklin' Charlie said...

I just figured out what you mean about requiring misdated photos. You are saying that in order for my hypothesis to be true, pictures of Bristol thought to have been dated at a certain time would have to have been misdated. I understand now...only took about 3 days for me to figure that out. Duh.

But like I said, the first place the scrubbers of the hoax would have started would have been with Bristol. And you're right, Sarah hasn't delivered any child since Piper.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Cracklin Charlie (thought you were a guy!) in that Bristol is mother of both boys and both were born earlier than stated. I think Bristol was post partum and leaking breast milk at the convention, hence the gray bolster dress which was padded. I think the McCain team cooked up the whole let's make Bristol due in late 2008 to cover for the fact that she couldn't be Tri-G's mom. I think the Palin's had no idea Bristol was pregnant with the first baby until she delivered him prematurely and put everyone into a panic. This may be when CBJ got involved as Bristol was young and CBJ knows the Palin's from Fundie land and CBJ owed Palin for helping her become FFP of the year 2003. Maybe the plan was to adopt out the first kid. Maybe Bristol wasn't on board with the lose her baby plan. Then Brstol gets pregnant AGAIN. Jeebus, Sarah thinks. What the hell? Then Sarah has her lightbulb idea to fake the pregnancy with a Tri-G. Maybe her fundy friends helped her KNOWING that this will surely get McCain's team attention. And it surely does. I think Tripp was born before April 2008 and the wild ride was a totally scheduled planned handoff of a (?the) TRi-G. When McCain team found out the whole sordid mess of a serial pregnant teen, a mother who cooks up a cover scheme with personal benefits , they decided to make Bristol pregnant for the convention to dispel rumors that she was TRi-G's mom too.
Isn't this where Audrey was going before she was silenced?
Works for me. A perfect storm.

Cracklin' Charlie said...

I just wanted to comment about some of the things that led me to the idea of two babies before the convention. I am going to attempt to list them in the chronological order that I think these things may have happened. I would appreciate any input.

1. A letter that Bristol's aunt wrote to somebody discussing the challenges of raising a special needs child. I believe this was traced to October 2007. To my mind, there is no need to write such a letter unless a special needs child had already been born. I would think that sending such a letter before a child was born would be completely tactless. What if a mistake was made during testing, and baby turned out to be fine? What if something happened during gestation, and the child did not survive? Most women would wait until the pregnancy had been concluded.

2. Lt. Governor Parnell wanting Sarah to call him sometime when she could be in a quiet place, and not distracted. Maybe October 07. This must have been something very serious. These were not people who were best friends, they merely worked together. I think he told her that Bristol was pregnant again. He probably drew the short straw and had to tell her.

3.The need to adopt Trig (announced publicly by her pregnancy announcement March 2008)...Why would Sarah need to adopt this child? Young girls make mistakes, babies are born. This happens every day. Sarah could have easily explained one baby. The kids made a mistake, they'll be getting married, yada, yada. But no, Sarah decides to adopt the baby. Why? I think there is no way could she explain away her 17 year old daughter having TWO children. That wouldn't just be a mistake by the kids, that one would fall on an inattentive mother to a sexually active teen-age daughter.

4. The Wild Ride. Why would they need to present the baby this way? The story as told is ludicrous. No woman is stupid enough to do this. There has to be an explanation for why this is included. Could be an unexpected delivery by Bristol, could be that this was the opportune time to have access to the hospital facility.

5. Video of Bristol running on ice in early December 2008. At her stage of pregnancy, even if she was only carrying her first child, this would not happen. The only explanation is that she was not pregnant in early Dec 2008. I could almost go with fact on this one. Pregnant women just can't do this. If she was not pregnant in THIS video, then...McCain lied, Bristol lied, Sarah lied. They then lied again, and said Bristol had the baby 2 weeks later.

Now, I have a couple of things I need input on.
Does anyone know if baby Trig was given, or wore, a Pittsburgh Steelers hoodie during the 2008 campaign?
Does anyone have access to a photograph of a very young Bristol holding a newborn Trig? I haven't seen this one lately, but I think she was wearing pink, and maybe sitting on bleachers with other people. I haven't been able to find it.

Anonymous said...

I think the wild ride was only to facilitate the use of MatSu...CBJ or some fundie on the board set up a private room in a corner for the handoff. Brad S thinks Sarah might not even have been there. It was scheduled and orchestrated. The problem is Sarah, and apparently CBJ and the fundies are STUPID. Once you start putting two and two together, the tale falls apart. Hmm, isn't Sarah, in her mid 40's, with a history of two miscarriages , carrying a Tri-G fetus High Risk? Is CBJ, a FP physician, credentialed to be her OB? The correct answer is NO boys and girls. Would MatSu allow a high risk prematurely ruptured membranes of a Tri-G fetus pregnancy to be induced for delivery? A faciltiy sans NICU or neonatal specialist? Again, boys and girls, the answer is Hell, NO. And the piece de resistance, we have good ole Chuckles adding his two cents about water breaking. And stupid Sarah, instead of perhaps saying "no, my dad got that wrong"...she can't quite think quickly enough on her feet and starts spewing famous word salad about some contractions and leaking and whatnot. Since she seemed to have gotten away with it, she puts it in her biography as well. The problem for her and all involved now, is that they can't unring that bell. Eventually that bell will reach resonance and implode on them!
Cracklin, remeber the photo of the Palin kids at a picnic with TRi-G, who looks like he has a nasal cannula or feeding tube? I wonder if Bristol is pregnant in that picture.

Allison said...

C C - I don't remember the picture of Bristol holding a newborn Trig. Let's hope it surfaces.

Do you care to share the importance of the Pittsburgh Steeler's hoodie? I'm clueless there, too.

Where can we find the letter from the aunt? I'd like to put up a link.

If anyone wants to email me something, here's my email:

Allison said...

Anon@6:53 Can't argue with your conclusions about Mat-Su or the rest. Maybe Brad will dig out something with his newspaper ads. I've got my fingers crossed.

The picnic picture was summer 08 and Bristol was pregnant, with Tripp, if we believe she was pregnant at the RNC. I do. More pregnant than they announced.

The nasal cannula wasn't. Can't remember what it was that gave that appearance, but it wasn't medical equipment of any kind.

Cracklin' Charlie said...


I will look further for the picture of Bristol with newborn Trig, I am sure someone must have it. This picture always struck me as important, because both Trig and Bristol look very young. Trig looks younger in the photo than he did in the hallway with the Heaths. Another picture that I always thought suspicious was one that appeared on the cover of People magazine. The photo was of Sarah, Piper, and Trig, and in this one also, Trig looks younger than he did in the Mat-Su hallway with the Heaths. He is wearing a red jumper that looks, for all the world, like part of a Christmas outfit. Like say, the picture was taken in fall, 07 (he wasn't officially born then), and recycled for the People cover after Trig's official "birthday".

The reason I ask about the Pittsburgh hoodie is because I recently saw a picture of Trig and Tripp in which Trig is wearing a Steelers hoodie. This picture is quite interesting, to me, because I think it might show both boys around the time of the convention, or a little after. Trig looks very much the same age as he did at the convention, and of course if Tripp is there, the whole idea of Bristol being pregnant during the convention is blown.

I would try to include the picture here, but I don't think I know how. I think I will email it to you, Alison, and you can see what you think.

Mackie said...

Charlie, You are inquisitive and that's good. However, the picture of Trig wearing the hoodie I am sure was taken in early 09. Trig is much bigger than during the RNC. He was small then. Look at his head size.

The SarahPiperTrig picture was taken in June, when the People mag people were there. Early June. Look to her emails for more exact date. Maybe the 6th?

Compare it said...

Allison, she barely had a belly at the RNC. She had even less of one at the picnic, July 19th I believe. She didn't fully pop out until like Oct 10th ish. For a first pregnancy, that's probably about right for a Dec birth.
There's a picture of her that someone uploaded to her facebook publicly of her in early Oct. Her belly wasn't pronounced yet, like it was OCt 11th with Aaron Tippin. Like a freak, I have pictures of Sarah and crew every single day of the election.

Thoughts guys?

Anonymous said...

Charlie, Heather wrote a letter on Oct 4th about raising her son, the same kid who was with the family in Auburn in Jun e09.

Anonymous said...

I always wondered why, if Sean and Sarah weren't friends, they seemed to meet over dinner (the two couples). There was an email where Sarah said they took Piper to the zoo then were meeting Sean and Sandy for dinner. The two APPEARED tight via email. However, political allies are a tricky business. There really is no such thing as friendship amongth politicians. Isn't that what Sarah told Glen B?