Sunday, August 29, 2010

Is It Just Me?


While I was looking at old online birth announcements from Mat-Su Regional, I came across a picture of a baby that was likely born on or shortly after April 18, 2008. I know this because someone shared a birth announcement with me for a baby born on April 18, 2008 at 1:27 am. By changing the number at the end of the URL, I was able to view the babies born before and after the one I had the link for. This baby was born after the one one in the link I was sent.

I am posting a link to the picture instead of putting it here because the picture distorts when I try to post it. Please take a look at the picture.

Is it just me or does that baby look a lot like Trig looks in this picture?


I remembered reading on Palin Deception that there was evidence that Trig was once included in the online nursery. Here’s what Audrey wrote:

Here's another piece of weirdness.  Much has been made of the fact that there was no announcement of Trig Palin's birth on the Mat-Su Hospital website.  But a clever search engine friend has led us to the following discoveries.  I am quoting from his email directly.

You should note that there apparently was a Trig Palin birth announcement up on the Matsu Hospital website, but it was taken down. Run this Google search, and see what you get:
trig palin
How about that?! Then try: trig
No mention of Trig on those pages, but there certainly appears to have been one at one time. I have tried all the search engine caches, however, and it's too late to see what it said. Apparently, it was put up and then taken down.

I tried it and it works.  Try it for yourself.  The explanation as I understand it is that Google "remembers" that those words were on that page even if the words are no longer there.  Here is a screen shot I took when I tried it.

Please give me your honest opinion whether you agree or disagree with me about the baby picture linked to above resembling Trig.




Postergirl said...

Disagree - doesn't look like him at all. Babies do look so much alike when born. I have pics of my own son when newborn where in some pics taken the same day or a day or two apart, he looks like different babies depending on the angle, lighting, etc., but there is still something there that says he's the same baby. The Palin cover and the photo you show are clearly different babies.

Daisydem said...

To me, it really does not look like him, but even if there was a resemblance, and if (big IF) the baby we know as Trig was actually born on April 18, 2008, prematurely, there is no way the baby you link to here is a premature baby. Look not only at the cheeks but at the chubby fingers. This baby looks like it is 2-3 months old.

Anonymous said...

It's just you, Blade.

Agnes said...

No, I don't think he looks like the Trig in the magazine picture. There's a similarity in the shape of the head, but the nose and mouth are wrong. Magazine Trig has that delicate little nose and mouth.

Maybe someone would like to check these two pictures and tell me what you think of the toes on the baby's right foot. Are they the same?

I'm sorry these aren't proper links. Couldn't figure out how to insert them in my post. The first is Kitchen Baby aka Ruffles.

The second is Tripp in the Harper's Bazaar spread from a couple of months ago. You may need to scroll down to the picture of Bristol in the multicoloured dress. Tripp is in the high chair with his bare feet showing.

Anonymous said...

I don't think this looks like trig either.

Anonymous said...

On the issue of a Trig announcement having been removed, Audrey later learned that that Google response could mean that searches had been done for that information, not necessarily that the information had previously been on the site. -B

Anonymous said...

I disagree with the other commenters. It looks an awful lot like the Trig of the baby shower photos. The facial features are almost an exact match. As for size, it's impossible to tell the size of the baby in this photo as there is nothing to compare it to, no grown humans nearby. The buttons on the shirt do look rather large in comparison to the baby's fingers. There is more hair, but newborns often have a LOT of hair, even covering the whole face that quickly goes away. The only real difference I see is that the baby shower baby's forehead looks rounder, bigger, but that may be an effect of the hair going away also.

BTW, I know Alaska birth/marriage/divorce records are sealed for at least 50 years, but does anyone know if a freedom of information act request can get around this prohibition?

Anonymous said...

We don't actually "know" that the baby was born prematurely. Sarah lies.

Anonymous said...

It looks very much like the same baby. I have to disagree with the first few people who posted here.

Anonymous said...

Alaska birth records are sealed for 100 years.

The Freedom of Information Act can not get around this.

Anonymous said...

It might help to do a side by side comparison - however, neither that baby nor the baby on the mag cover look like the delicate baby known as Ruffles.

So there is no way it's Ruffles. It's not the baby in the mag either - the nose and the mouth are different. Similar, but different.