Sunday, August 22, 2010

Bit By Bit

 

My last post consisted of suspicions and speculations. Some points I feel are absolutely valid. Other points were included only to fit in with with the account of the Trig pregnancy as told by Sarah in Going Rogue.

I am not married to my latest theory but put it forth as a vehicle to foster discussion that might lead us to new avenues to explore. I am trying to look at Babygate from many angles while also trying to look at the whole picture. I’m sure everyone can agree that doing that is very difficult.

Sometimes going over the same thing over and over again gets so exasperating that when I discover something new I latch on to it tenaciously. Being far removed from Alaska, the internet is my only means to investigate Babygate but the articles and images available on the internet are very repetitive so I would like to ask a favor of all reading this. If you discover anything you find interesting, please email me links to the information. Some of you are already doing that and it is greatly appreciated but more eyes looking means a greater chance of catching something that might have been overlooked. I will check out anything sent to me to the best of my ability.

I have noticed in reading numerous articles about Sarah Palin plus three of the books written about her that Sarah’s stories are always changing. To me that is the hallmark of a lie but I believe there are elements of truth in those lies. By examining and re-examining her statements hopefully we can pick out those bits of truth and by joining those bits together we can arrive at the whole truth.

bladecatz@mail.com

Blade

20 comments:

Ginger said...

A lot of people have commented on how drugged Tripp was during the Today Show interview. Why was he drugged like that? I've given this a lot of thought and this is what I came up with:

Tripp didn't want to sit on Bristol's lap. Why? Because she isn't his mother. Bristol looked uncomfortable with Tripp during the GVS interview. Here he is a few months later. Remember, in a previous post, I said he was a mama's boy?

Another point. Look at the Mother's Day picture of the Palin family in USA Today. Notice how the Palins are all looking at the camera, except Tripp. His head is turned way around to the left. His mother was probably standing there. After they discovered that fiasco, they made sure she was standing by the camera.

I'll bet every time you see Bristol with Tripp, his mother is there. Somewhere. She probably travels with Bristol as a nanny.

Just speculatin'...

Heidi1 said...

Ginger, Ginger. I always love your thoughts, but c'mon! I thought there were at least a few things we all agreed on. (1) $arah didn't birth TriG, (2) TriG was 'obtained' as a political prop, (3) Bristol is Tripp's birth mother.

Is USA Today that cheap 'magazine' that comes in the Sunday papers? If so, I remember that, mostly because Track looked stoned out of his gourd, and the photographer was terrible. Tripp was looking somewhere else, and I remember the photo was so bad that even the soles of their shoes showed.

Tripp was probably looking AT his nanny, who was more than likely more of a Mommy to him than Bristol at that point. Or he could even have been looking at a new toy they were using as a prop to get him to smile.

There are a lot of reasons I think he was drugged. (And by the way, so was TriG at the RNC, IMO). I'm not kidding here...I think Tripp could actually have started blurting out intelligible words, blowing the whole cover of how old he was 'supposed to be'.

Heidi1 said...

Blade, regarding you last paragraph: The truth is always hidden in the lies. Liars twist, turn, and embellish. They pile useless tidbits upon useless tidbits, garnishing their stories to the point of disbelief. This is what is known as "baffling them with bullshit".

Five years ago, shamefully, I was taken in by one of the best liars, con-artists, sociopaths ever born to the tune of $23,000. I have now had years to look back and rehash every little fine-tuned ploy played on me by an expert.

In contrast, the Palins are dumb as rocks; we all are ten times smarter, as I am now. Over time, with dogged investigation and excellent memories, and noticing the Palins' verbal slips along the way, we will prevail. I feel that strongly.

In my sad case, and now looking back, I realize that if I had only removed the 'embellishments' surrounding the lies, the truth was just laying there, gleaming for me to see. Perhaps what I'm saying is I think we're getting closer by adhering to yours & Floyd Orr's "Keep it Simple Stupid - KISS" principle.

I'm sure I'll be insulting a lot of Alaskans here, but we're talking about WASILLA...the land of bumpits, troweled on makeup, gum-snapping, snow toys, pregnant teens as a status symbol, home-'skooling', etc. Wasilla appears to be stuck somewhere in the '80's, or the back hills of somewhere. We're so far beyond that, and we're smarter than McCain's people were. The finest inquiring minds are working on this, and we'll get there.

mxm said...

In looking at the babies, I do not have the slightest bit of difficulty believing that Tripp is exactly who he is claimed to be. A baby born in late Dec 2008 to Bristol Palin, with the self-acknowledged father being Levi Johnston. He was born at a respectable size and I would bet he has always topped the charts - he is a big toddler and he was a long tall healthy baby. Developmentally, he is now and always has been right on track with the expected milestones. There are enough pics and videos of Tripp to assess his developmental achievements and he is right smack on time as far as I can see.

In my opinion, the links between Tripp and the ruffled ear baby are worth pursuing but from a different perspective. I believe that they are siblings, with a maternal connection. They are not gestational twins, although they are most likely "Irish Twins". Where is this toddler?

WaveLength said...

Dear mxm:

Even though you have posted this term in quotes, you could have just said it in a straightforward manner: babies born in quick succession. Much less pejorative, and more informative overall.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-irish-twins.htm

Anonymous said...

Gee Heidi1, I live in Wasilla which you speak of in such a disparaging tone, yet I have to let you know that at no point in my life have I ever lost $23,000 to a con artist. Must be the protection offered to me by the snow toys and the bumpits :-)

So sorry that you got taken by someone, but hey, leave Wasilla out of it. Some of us live here because it is close to the things that we love; nature, mountains and incredible outdoor opportunities.

Your monetary loss is not truly so great in the scheme of things, however, as that amount of money would barely be enough to purchase 1.5 new 4-stroke "snowtoys". As a matter of fact, if you lived here you'd have the opportunity to make back some of that money with the average $1300 per year that you get for living here!

Agnes said...

Heidi1, that's an interesting insight, that the truth is hiding in plain sight, yet it's so hard to decide what to discard.

To me, the first bald fact is that a baby was presented to the press on April 18, 2008, said to be the son of Sarah and Todd Palin. He didn't look quite young enough to be newborn, but maybe he was. He looked as if he had Down Syndrome. They said his name was Trig.

For the next couple of weeks, Sarah wore a sling and said there was a baby in it. Maybe there was. Maybe not.

Early in May, the Johnstons saw a baby in the Palins' home, said to be Trig. This baby looked different. There was no clear sign of DS, but there was a deformed ear and an unusual set of toes. He was seen again at a shower, and in a magazine, and in a birth announcement. I think he's the baby in the picture of all the Palin children seated on the grass later in the summer, when he has some kind of tube in his nose.

All this time, there has been no certain sighting of the baby last seen in the hospital.

Late in August, Sarah steps out onto the national stage, carrying what looks like a baby with DS. Is it Ruffles? Unlikely. Is it the baby from the hospital? Maybe.

The truth must be here, somewhere. Why can't I see it?

Ginger said...

To: Heidi1

The only thing we have agreed upon, is that Sarah faked a pregnancy.

My days also go back to PD, and I have never waivered on my thoughts that Bristol was never pg during the campaign. The e-mail...not a rumor...not a theory...a real piece of evidence that proved Sarah sent invoices to the SOA, Benefits Div., for Trig's birth on April 18, 2008, solidified my thinking. Remember, when someone tells a lie part of the lie is the truth?

All we can do is wait, watch and be aware. If I ever find one wee bit of evidence that proves me wrong, I'll be the first to let you know.

Stay vigilant...

Anonymous said...

Chris Ray was originally thought to be Bristol's boyfriend/potential father of Trig. There was a MySpace page from a boy, Chris Ray, one of her classmates that allegedly had the words ""I LOVE BRISTOL PALIN MORE THEN ANYTHING IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD!" The original had been removed apparently prior to the announcement of the VP pick. But many people across the net saw the cached version, which was then also removed. It always struck me as odd that Levi would say on his MySpace page that he didn't want kids, if he already had one. Bad enough to say it if you girlfriend is pregnant, but worse if you have a kid. And why wouldn't the McCain people scrub Levi's site too? Strange.
Found a page from the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman of the Police Beat from Feburary 12, 2008 (after Sarah has announced her pregnancy, prior to "birth"). There is a comment by a Chris Ray wondering why Bristol Palin's name has been removed from the article. It looks like the story that had something removed from it was the first one, a section about a teenager shoplifting.
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/02/12/local_news/for_the_record/doc47b15d2cb6df0732991573.txt

Anonymous said...

Re Chris Ray -
I think the article with Bristol Palin was the one saying that a 17 year old Wasilla resident had a car accident. Apparently, that is near a prenatal clinic

Heidi1 said...

To Anonymous @ 1:31 - Thank you for your comments; you have shown yourself quite well. Unfortunately, it appears that you missed my entire point. My loss of some money was merely an illustrative reference, meant to show that I learned valuable lessons about how to better ferret out liars and sociopaths in my future dealings with people.

The topic and goal of this blog is to find out the truth about $arah Palin. So here, we all postulate our theories, sometimes differing, but always with the final goal in mind, and always respectful. If I have insulted you (which I said I might be doing, in fact), please understand that it was a sweeping generalization.

I mentioned Wasilla because the general impression the Lower 49 has of it is unfortunately, what we've been shown for 2 years. I know there certainly must be fine people there, but we are only seeing the Palins. We also know that there are people there who will not come forward with the truth. For whatever reason, they don't seem to see or CARE that they hold the reins of power; they can free our entire country from this Palin abomination. It is a silence that I personally find mind-boggling. The study of this mindset sheds light on how we go about the investigation.

As for your suggestion of living where you do for $1,300 free dollars per year, well, I'll have to respectfully decline the thought. My investments make more than that per month, and I would never take one dollar that my lifetime of working and saving didn't supply me.

Ginger - What are your thoughts about this possibility: Since we agree that $arah didn't give birth to Down Syndrome TriG (not on 4-18-08 or ever), was the baby she submitted bills for 'Ruffles'? I have read that these bills were actually submitted by Dr. CBJ, and there was a possiblility of chicanery with that. I'd like to hear your theory as to which baby you think these bills were actually for.

Anonymous said...

This is interesting...I saw on Audrey's blog that there was a "Kodi Johnston" that was quickly dismissed as an older brother that had passed away. However, it appears that this may be an older sister who in fact married an Adam Calabrese and is living in the Bahamas as some sort of Christian "Reality Disciple" leader.

Ginger said...

To: Heidi1

Yes, I agree Sarah did not give birth to D/S Trig. Bristol was the one who did. Dr. CBJ orchestrated the plan and it was brilliant. With their connections between the church/Mat-Su Hospital and the cult like conditions where they live, it was possible.

Most people are not aware of these conditions and cannot wrap their mind around the fact that a woman, governor of a state, would fake a pg.
Add to this the fact that her daughter did too, and even you will find this inconceivable.

As I've told you, Heidi1, there are no other babies! The invoices were for Trig. Dr. CBJ's plan worked perfectly. If you have read my other posts, you should be able to understand it. Dr. CBJ, however, had no idea Sarah was going to tell the "wild ride" story. And, on top of that, the RNC didn't have time to deal with the "birth certificate" Dr. CBJ made sure Sarah had in-hand when she ran for VP.

How many times have we heard Sarah say, "I've shown the birth certificate?" Well, just maybe she did...to the RNC. Did you see Steve Schmidt on 60 minutes? He was feigning outrage and anger at Sarah because he was screaming..."she didn't tell us her daughter was pregnant." No, Steve, she didn't tell you her daughter was pg because..."she wasn't!"

Unfortunately, Mr. Schmidt did't tell the rest of the story. The RNC didn't have time to deal with Sarah's b/c. They only had two months to prepare her and present her to the public. They had to work with someone who didn't even know there was a North Korea and a South Korea. Now, what does that tell you?

They had so many fires to put out in Alaska. Troopergate alone was a mess. Then, she wouldn't turn the state over to the LG and the RNC had to set up an office in Alaska. I could go on and on. Oh, and don't forget the chaos over PO's b/c. It was so much easier for the RNC to just say..."Bristol is five months pregnant."

Sarah had to be furious over this. All the effort/lying/cheating she put into the fake pg and the RNC did this to her and her daughter. Not to mention the damage to her doctor. Don't worry, we know Sarah. That's probably the #1 priority on her "get even" list.

Heidi1, no one furnished a D/S baby to Sarah. Bristol gave birth to Trig and he is the baby in the picture with Chuck in the hospital. Sadie knows who the baby is she is holding in the Triggybear picture but she'll never tell.

The Johnston's role in all this is to convince everyone Tripp exists. Levi plays the father and Sadie is the aunt. Tripp is the cornerstone that holds the whole mess together.

This is my story but the e-mail is for real...

NakedTruth said...

I still don't trust the Johnstons. Interesting that Ginger doesn't think there is a Tripp.

Anything is possible with these dysfunctional families (Palins and Johnstons).

LisanTX said...

Ginger--Bristol and Levi filed documents with the court in the child custody/support case stating that Tripp was born on December 28, 2008.

Do you think they would do this if it wasn't true? If so, do you think their attorneys are not in on it? If they have filed pleadings and affidavits that they knew were false they could be in big trouble.

Do you think the custody/support case is all about the baby we know as Trig? (even tho Tripp's name is on the documents)

Agnes said...

Ginger, again, I'm a fan of the simple solution, so your one-baby scenario has its appeal, but there are some questions.

(1) If the baby presented at the hospital is Bristol's baby, and he is the present-day Trig, why would Sarah get Mercede to borrow a baby two weeks later? Why not just use the cute, cuddly, photogenic Trig they already had?

(2) Those shots that Mercede took in the Palin kitchen weren't meant to be shown to the public. We heard that her brother didn't speak to her all that summer after those pictures went online. He was told not to communicate with the camera-happy sister. Later, the RNC cleared Mercede's computer. Why would the Palins take her into their confidence to get them a borrowed baby, and then treat her like a criminal? It would make more sense to keep on friendly terms with her to encourage her to keep the secret.

(3) Ruffles was displayed at a shower, featured on a magazine cover, and depicted on a birth announcement, with ears carefully hidden. He was also seen much later in the summer in the group picture of the kids on the grass. Don't you think that looks as if he was part of the family and Sarah meant to keep him?

(4) Regarding ivoices, who has seen them? Bristol could have had quintuplets for all we know.

I don't think there was any brilliant planning behind this. It was done on the fly with minimum thought. Sarah didn't really take much trouble to fake the pregnancy, unless you think wearing a raincoat indoors and stuffing a sofa pillow in your front is a lot of trouble. I think CBJ only agreed to allow Sarah to use Mat-Su hospital for the press release and to more or less back up the story. She shut up tight when questioned by the local newspaper. A strong statement from her at the start could have stopped the gossip before it got out of hand. I think she refused to falsify documents, except possibly to send the invoice in Sarah's name instead of Bristol's. There is no false birth certificate because Sarah didn't think she would need one. She thought nobody would dare ask.

Yes, the RNC got quite the surprise package when they picked Sarah, but the birth story could have been easily dealt with. Show the birth certificate, whether it's fake or real, get CBJ to do a press conference and say she saw Trig being born, maybe bribe somebody to be an additional witness. One day's work, at most, and Bristol's name didn't need to be mentioned.

For the record, I don't believe Bristol was pregnant in the summer of 2008, and still think there was something fishy about Tripp's birth, but his existence can't be denied. I do think the Johnstons are telling some lies to protect Sarah, Lord knows why. They're certainly not getting much out of it. For the most part, I think they are innocent people caught in a cruel trap.

So, much as I'd like to, I just can't get this down to a one-baby theory. I can't accept Ruffles as a borrowed baby. He needs to be accounted for.

Anonymous said...

LisanTX-can you point me to a link to the court documents stating Tripp's birth as Dec. 28? I thought it was supposed to be the 27th? Are there conflicting accounts of the date? Thanks!

conscious at last said...

Wow, this is a good discussion.

Blade- You've started something really great here!

I like the idea that even when the Palins lie, there is a bit of truth wrapped in- we just have to figure out which is which!!

I don't think SP is stupid, although she is ignorant (and probably mentally ill). But regarding the faked pregnancy(s)-- at first, she was playing to her mostly adoring Alaskan audience. She could tell folks this silly, obvious lie and it would be accepted by many, while others may have questioned it privately. BUT, when the VP nomination came up, and SP had to deal with the "eyes of the nation" viewing her pregnancy, things changed.
More folks began to question it and the stakes were higher. I don't think SP does long run planning, she responds to the issue of the moment and constructs her lies to fit it. We saw that in the Homer confrontation. I am saying this because the "Keep it Simple" theory may have merit before the GOP campaign, but after that, things got more complicated. So that, for example, a possible second faked pregnancy may be involved. (I have been saying for many months now that perhaps the "custody" fight is really about TRIG, not TRIPP. )

I think it would be GREAT if some boots on the ground in Alaska could tell us WHERE these little guys are NOW.

LisanTX said...

Anon. at 9:17--you're right about the 27th instead of the 28th.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/images/media/files/news/politics/palin_1.pdf

The important thing for my point is that the date is NOT April 18, 2008, as stated in the email about submitting insurance documents to the State of Alaska.

If there were just one baby, then there's a problem with using two different dates for his birth. If "Trig" was born April 18th, there is a conflict with the court papers giving Dec. 27th as the date of birth of "Tripp."

It's all so confusing.

Ginger said...

To: conscious at last

Re: Custody fight about Trig...not Tripp

The e-mail that tells us Sarah's name was on the claims/invoices, also tells us the b/c has to be in her name too. It doesn't make sense any other way. If so, Sarah and Todd are the legal parents of Trig and that relieves Levi of any responsibility towards him.