Can someone explain to me how photos of Palin looking pregnant prove she wasn't faking?

Nine

(472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Aug-31-08 10:33 PM
Original message

Can someone explain to me how photos of Palin looking pregnant prove she wasn't faking?

Edited on Sun Aug-31-08 11:04 PM by Nine

Doesn't faking a pregnancy necessarily include some fancy pillow-stuffing?

On the other hand, this picture of her at six months is pretty strong evidence to me that she wasn't pregnant.

I don't see how anyone can look at that and think otherwise.

EDIT - changed from seven months to six months

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JVS

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Aug-31-08 10:33 PM
Response to Original message

1. You're right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

marylanddem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Aug-31-08 10:35 PM
Response to Original message

2. She might have started pillow stuffing after this was taken.

The one or two I have seen where she looks vaguely overweight could easily have been pillow-stuffed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mz Pip

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Aug-31-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. Or pregnant. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Aqaba

(781 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Aug-31-08 10:37 PM
Response to Original message

3. That picture was at 23.5 weeks, or roughly 6 months

It was taken on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5th.

Her due date was May 18th, which puts conception around August 24th.

I do think there is something fishy about all this stuff, but I wish people could get the dates on photos right. Like the one from 2006 that everyone points to as Bristol being pregnant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nine

(472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Aug-31-08 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #3

6. Are you certain?

I've been correcting people on the 2006 photo myself, but this
one has an address of

http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/03/09/01/307-3504041.standalone.prod_affiliate.7.jpg

So it's from a real news source and the address they chose
suggests to me it's from March 09. I'll edit if I'm wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kath

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Aug-31-08 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #6

8. I'm certain.

I think I was the first one to post that photo here. It was on the ADN website, and the caption specifically said that it was taken on Super Tuesday, which was Feb. 5.

Daily Kos has the date wrong, and so now many others have it wrong as well.
Go the ADN website and see for yourself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nine

(472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Aug-31-08 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. fixed (nt)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kath

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Aug-31-08 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #3

7. thanks - I crossposted with you, below. The sloppiness really bugs me too, with SO many people

the dates of photos wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kath

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Aug-31-08 10:47 PM
Response to Original message

5. Just for the record, especially since the diarist at Kos has this WRONG -

Edited on Sun Aug-31-08 10:51 PM by kath

the above photo was taken on Super Tuesday, FEBRUARY 5, NOT IN MARCH as stated on Kos.

Supposedly she was 36 weeks along on date of delivery, April 18. That would make her 25 1/2 weeks on the day of that photo, and not quite 30 weeks on the day she announced her pregnancy (March 5 or 6)

[{n edit,[above post was not present when I started writing mine)note that docs consider pregancy to be 40 weeks from the 1st day of the last menstrual period, even though you're not actually pregnant those first two weeks. The due date is 40 weeks post-LMP, which is actually 38 weeks post-conception. So in dr.-speak, she was around 25 1/2 weeks in the photo)}

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

solowannabee

(53 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Sep-01-08 12:04 AM
Response to Original message

10. well, she does not look very pregnant there...but

but here in this thread we can see that the daughter is pregnant right now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6855265&mesg_id=6855265

Check out the lightened photo near the end of the thread. It is easier to see there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

solowannabee

(53 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Sep-01-08 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #10

11. and see this pic too

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

demobabe

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Sep-01-08 12:36 AM
Response to Original message

12. Well, given pictures of a visably pregnant Bristol was holding Trig...

...Trig is 4 months old? So unless Bristol somehow was full term with one pregnancy while being 4-5 months pregnant with another one, then she isn't the mother. Yes, Bristol WAS pulled from school for "mono" and yes, it WAS because she was pregnant, but not with Trig.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 30th 2024, 03:35 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.